INCOME: a culturally inclusive and disability-sensitive framework for organizing career development concepts and interventions.

This article demonstrates how the INCOME model (S. Beveridge, S. Heller Craddock, J. Liesener, M. Stapleton, & D. Hershenson, 2002; D. Hershenson & J. Liesener, 2003), developed with special reference to persons with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds, provides a framework for organizing, selecting, and implementing concepts from career theories and career intervention practices. Rather than using stages or processes typical of existing career development theories, this framework uses J. E. Helms's (1995) multicultural construct of statuses, which may occur or recur in any order or combination. The 6 career statuses in the INCOME framework, which occur across demographic and cultural groups, are Imagining, iNforming, Choosing, Obtaining, Maintaining, and Exiting.

**********

Currently, almost a century after being identified as a domain of counseling by Frank Parsons (1909), the career area encompasses a broad range of theories of career development and a wide array of facilitative and remedial career interventions (Liptak, 2001; Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2005). Unfortunately, these theories and interventions emerged, for the most part, from different historical roots (career theories from personality theory and career interventions from applied counseling practice) and so are not consistently coordinated with each other (Hershenson & Liesener, 2003; Savickas & Walsh, 1996). Furthermore, questions have been raised about the applicability of many career theories and interventions to diverse segments of the population (based on gender, race, cultural background, sexual orientation, disability status) that were not included in the development of these theories or interventions (Arbona, 1996; Curnow, 1989; Fitzgerald & Betz, 1994; Leong, 1996; Pope, 1995; Szymanski, Enright, Hershenson, & Ettinger, 2003). Finally, it has been observed that no existing career development theory is a complete theory, let alone a comprehensive model of the career development process (Savickas & Lent, 1994).

In reality, there will probably never be a single, unified, comprehensive theory of career development and intervention, because the career development process is too complex, too dependent on the idiosyncratic interaction of personal and environmental variables, and too contextually determined. Nevertheless, a common framework within which to fit both career theory constructs and interventions that have been empirically validated (e.g., S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000) could be helpful in systematizing the field and in determining where lacunae exist. Moreover, to be useful with today's clientele, the framework must be applicable to a diverse population. This article proposes that the INCOME framework can fill this role. This framework was originally developed to conceptualize the career development of persons with disabilities (Beveridge, Heller Craddock, Liesener, Stapleton, & Hershenson, 2002) and subsequently expanded in scope to make it applicable to career counseling with diverse populations (Hershenson & Liesener, 2003). As Hershenson and Liesener indicated, "INCOME is intended as neither a theory of career development nor a model of career counseling, but rather as an inclusive framework to assist career counselors in responding systematically to the great heterogeneity among those with whom they work" (p. 306). The framework aims to be inclusive by (a) including concepts from as wide a range of career development theories as possible, (b) including both career development and career intervention considerations in a common universe of discourse, and (c) seeking to be applicable to diverse population groups. This article seeks to demonstrate the applicability and utility of the INCOME framework for career counseling practice.

Career Statuses

The INCOME framework uses the concept of career statuses (Beveridge et al., 2002). To understand the utility of this concept, one must examine existing approaches to career development. On the basis of this examination, I concluded that most theories (other than matching models that do not focus on developmental processes, such as Dawis, 1996; Holland, 1992; Parsons, 1909; and Rounds & Tracy, 1990) can be placed into one of two categories: stage models or process models. Stage models view career development as a series of sequential steps, focusing on one step at a time that must be substantially accomplished before the person can move on to the next step (e.g., Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad, & Herma's, 1951, periods of fantasy, tentative, and realistic; Super's, 1990, stages of growth, exploration, establishment, maintenance, and disengagement; Tiedeman's, 1961, stages of exploration, crystallization, choice, specification, induction, transition, and maintenance). Process models focus on one aspect of the career development process (e.g., early childhood experiences [e.g., Bordin, Nachmann, & Segal, 1963; Roe, 1957], social learning [e.g., Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1996; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996], the role of values [e.g., D. Brown, 1996], decision making [e.g., Katz, 1966; Peterson, Sampson, Reardon, & Lenz, 1996]) to the exclusion or minimization of other aspects (e.g., intervening experiences, environmental constraints, nonrational aspects of decisions).

Rather than using either stages or processes, with their attendant problems, the INCOME framework adopts Helms's (1995) concept of statuses, presented in her multicultural model of racial identity development. Helms defined statuses as "mutually interactive dynamic processes by which a person's behavior could be explained" (p. 183). She found the concept of statuses preferable to that of stages because (a) a person could simultaneously "exhibit attitudes, behaviors, and emotions reflective of more than one stage...; (b) ... stage seems to imply a static place or condition that the person 'reaches' rather than the dynamic interplay between cognitive and emotional processes...; and (c) neither theory nor measurement supports the notion of the various stages as mutually exclusive or 'pure' constructs" (Helms, 1995, p. 183). Similarly, the concept of statuses appears to be more reflective of in vivo career development than stages because statuses have no implication that a person must substantially achieve one status before progressing to the next status. A person can skip or return to a status, and statuses may recur in any sequence. Moreover, a person can simultaneously be in multiple statuses. The concept of statuses appears preferable to the notion of processes because statuses are more inclusive; that is, a given status can encompass multiple processes. Finally, the concept of statuses derives from Helms's inclusive multicultural model of racial identity development and so may better fit the diverse populations that experience career development (i.e., women and men, old and young, members of minority and majority groups, persons with and without disabilities). Indeed, Helms and Piper (1994) suggested the applicability of the concept of statuses to the study of the career behavior of diverse racial and cultural groups in American society.

The framework proposed here consists of six statuses: Imagining, i Nforming, Choosing, Obtaining, Maintaining, and Exiting, the initials of which form the acronym INCOME (Beveridge et al., 2002). Structured feedback from groups of counselors to whom these six statuses were presented (Hershenson, 2001) indicated that (a) each of the statuses can be found in the career patterns of at least some members of each of the diverse population groups and (b) there does not appear to be any career behavior of members of any of these diverse groups that does not fall within one of these statuses. I next define these six statuses and indicate concepts from existing career development theories that are applicable to each status. Then, I provide examples of career interventions appropriate for assisting a person in each status. Finally, I discuss the use of this framework in career counseling practice.

Imagining Status

Imagining is the status in which the person becomes aware that work, occupations, and jobs exist or that occupations or jobs that she or he was not formerly aware of exist. As Beveridge et al. (2002) posited, this status includes three types of imagining: awareness (e.g., realizing that there is such a thing as work, that there are occupations such as being a carpenter or a computer network systems manager, and that these phenomena have direct relevance to oneself), fantasy imagining (e.g., playing nurse or firefighter, having adult career daydreams about being in a different occupation or a different job), and reality-based imagining (i.e., limiting one's imagining to those occupations or jobs that one believes are possible in light of one's belief about one's capacities, resources, and opportunity structure). Awareness begins in early childhood, with the observation of a family member going to work or doing work at home and by exposure to images of work on television and other media. Then, at school, children do schoolwork and homework. Furthermore, many elementary and middle schools seek to promote career awareness, as called for by the National Career Development Guidelines (National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, 1992). The concept of fantasy imagining has been identified by Ginzberg et al. as the first of their three periods of the occupational choice process, by Super (1990) as the first substage of his Growth stage, and by Tiedeman (1961) in the first stage of his Anticipation period. As Lewin (1936) pointed out, it is easier to move on the level of fantasy because there are fewer barriers present. This proposition was supported by Ginzberg et al. (1951), who concluded, based on their study of boys, that in the earliest stage of the career choice process "a child is free from any urgency to deal with his occupational choice in a concrete manner. He can choose any occupation and there are no limits to his fantasy" (p. 63). Children engage in fantasy imagining from a very early age, and this behavior continues through adulthood, as may be inferred from movie attendance figures. The early onset of fantasy imagining means that parental influence and early life experience must significantly affect the process, because these are the principal stimuli available to the very young. Therefore, those career development theories that posit early childhood influences on career development (Bordin et al., 1963; Roe, 1957) but have failed to receive substantial empirical support in terms of their effect on adolescent or adult career choices, might well prove useful if applied to the study of career fantasy patterns in childhood and later life. These theories should be tested for their applicability to the Imagining status. Reality-based imagining is affected by factors addressed in social learning career theory (Lent et al., 1996; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1996) in terms of developing values (D. Brown, 1996), attitudes, and expectations about work and occupations that determine what the person considers realistic. Reality-based imagining is also affected by Gottfredson's (1981) process of circumscription (i.e., eliminating occupational alternatives primarily on the basis of gender and social class stereotyping). Blau and Duncan's (1967) status attainment theory is relevant to reality-based imagining because, like Gottfredson's concept of circumscription, it emphasizes family social status as a determinant of an individual's level of occupational aspirations. Imagining status is not limited to childhood but can be present at any point in one's career. Adolescent and adult career fantasies and daydreams fall within this status, as do adolescents and adults who become aware of options of which they were formerly unaware.

iNforming Status

The status of iNforming encompasses attaining the first two of Parsons's (1909) "three broad factors" in the choice of a vocation: "(1) a clear understanding of yourself, your aptitudes, abilities, interests, ambitions, resources, limitations, and their causes; (2) a knowledge of the requirements and conditions of success, advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opportunities, and prospects in different lines of work" (p. 5). Thus, formal and informal self-assessment and career assessment are major sources of input while the individual is in this status, as are obtaining and integrating career information. While in the iNforming status, individuals develop a conception of their work competencies (i.e., work habits, physical and mental skills that are applicable in work) and work-related interpersonal skills based on feedback about these competencies from their school or work setting (Hershenson, 1996). Individuals also acquire a conception of the supports and barriers to their career progress that both the general culture and the local school or work culture provide. The information about oneself (from family, teachers, peers, and employers), about one's competencies, about the world of work, and about cultural supports and barriers determines one's career self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Lent et al., 1996). Career self-efficacy and outcome expectations, in turn, serve to filter what career information is taken in, cognitively processed, and retained for consideration. Following the example set by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ("iNtuition" following "Introversion"), this status of the INCOME framework is identified by its second letter, N, to avoid having two statuses start with the letter I.

Choosing Status

Choosing, the third status in the INCOME framework, is the status in which the individual integrates information about self and about the world of work and selects an occupation, job, or educational program from among those known to the person at the time that the choice is made. This status, together with the next two statuses of the framework (Obtaining and Maintaining), derive from Danley and Anthony's (1987) Choose-Get-Keep model for employment of persons in psychiatric rehabilitation (Beveridge et al., 2002). The Choosing status incorporates the third of Parsons's (1909) three broad factors in choosing a vocation, "true reasoning on the relations" (p. 5) between self-knowledge and knowledge about occupations. In more contemporary terminology, this involves the process of career decision making (e.g., Mitchell & Krumboltz's, 1996, social learning theory of career decision making; Peterson et al.'s, 1996, cognitive information processing model; Tiedeman's, 1961, pioneering model of career decision making). Given the focus of this status on decision making, the literature on differences in decision-making style (Arroba, 1977; Harren, 1979; Herr & Cramer, 1996; Johnson, 1978) and on the validity of conscious decision making as a construct (Krieshok, 1998) is applicable to this status. This status also encompasses Ginzberg et al.'s (1951), Gottfredson's (1981), and Super's (1990) concepts of compromise and Super's process of synthesis in arriving at career decisions. Furthermore, Maslow's (1987) hierarchy of needs may affect the choice process in that higher level needs may enter into the choice only if lower order needs have been sufficiently satisfied. Finally, because people generally seek occupations that they believe will be congruent with their personalities, abilities, and needs, trait and factor theory (Rounds & Tracy, 1990), the most recent iteration of the theory of work adjustment (Dawis, 1996), and Holland's (1992) focus on person-work environment congruence are particularly applicable to the choice made while in this status.

Obtaining Status

In the Obtaining status, the individual seeks and obtains a job, preferably in the occupation of his or her choice or in as closely related an occupation as possible. This status includes preparing for, implementing, and successfully concluding the job search process (i.e., job finding, networking, resume preparation, employment interviewing skills, negotiating). These topics constitute much of the literature on employment counseling. This status is reflected in Salomone's (1982) fourth stage of career counseling, which involves implementing a career decision through job placement or starting one's own business. This status is also informed by human capital theory (Becker, 1964), which concerns people's willingness to invest in further training in order to obtain a better paying job after the completion of that training. Also, accident or happenstance theory (Cabral & Salomone, 1990; Mitchell, Levin, & Krumboltz, 1999) is relevant to this status; that is, unplanned or chance encounters that catch a person's attention can be turned into career opportunities. The environment is a major determinant of outcome in the Obtaining status. The economy affects the availability of jobs in the labor market. Also, family, community, and cultural influences may particularly affect this status (e.g., child care considerations, transportation accessibility, family contacts within a company or a union, institutional racism, affirmative action policies). As Miller (1999) noted, for members of marginalized groups, the reality of the occupational opportunity structure and the person's perception of it are frequently more important considerations in career development than the person's interests, abilities, or values.

Maintaining Status

Maintaining status involves the process of adapting to, performing in, and sustaining an occupation or a job. This status includes Super's (1990) Establishment and Maintenance stages. This status involves the dynamic interaction between the person and the environment that is the focus of person-environment (PE) interaction theories (Dawis, 1996; Rounds & Tracy, 1990). The focus of this status on the relationship between the person and the work setting makes work adjustment theories particularly applicable to this status. As Dawis stated concerning Lofquist and Dawis's theory of work adjustment, "A basic tenet of the theory is that person and environment attempt to achieve and maintain correspondence with each other" (p. 81). I have posited (Hershenson, 1996) that work adjustment was the sum of three components: work role behavior (the interaction between the person's work personality and the behavioral expectations of the work setting), task performance (the interaction between the person's work competencies and the skill requirements of the work setting), and worker satisfaction (the interaction between the person's work goals and the rewards and opportunities offered by the work setting). In this status, the work environment and the cultural context are highly influential in enhancing or blocking successful outcomes. Therefore, organizational career theory (Hall & Associates, 1986) is also particularly applicable to this status. Finally, because Maintaining involves balancing work and other life roles, Super's life-career rainbow is applicable to this status.

Exiting Status

Exiting, the sixth status of the INCOME framework, involves the process of thinking about leaving or actually leaving one's current vocational situation. Because exiting, by definition, involves a transition, Schlossberg's (1984) transition theory is particularly applicable to this status. Exiting encompasses not only getting fired or retiring but also being promoted to a different position or departing voluntarily from one's present position to enter a new work setting or avocational (e.g., volunteer) experience. Stressful life event theory and research (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) indicate that being fired, being promoted, and retiring are all stressful events. Several factors may cause an individual to move into involuntary Exiting status, including poor job performance, employer downsizing, and reaching mandatory retirement age. Voluntary exiting may result from such factors as lack of job satisfaction, lack of opportunities for advancement in one's present setting, or intolerable conditions in the workplace. In these cases, work adjustment theories (Dawis, 1996; Hershenson, 1996) are applicable to this status. Maslow's (1987) hierarchy of needs may also be germane to this status in that a job taken to fill a particular level of need may have succeeded in meeting that need, motivating the individual to seek a different job that will meet a higher level need. For example, an individual who became a stock-broker to meet financial needs might, once those needs have been met, exit that occupation and become an artist to fulfill creative, aesthetic needs (e.g., the French postimpressionist painter Paul Gauguin). An individual may be in the Exiting status a number of times over the course of her or his career and may consider exiting while in other statuses (e.g., while simultaneously maintaining one job and imagining himself or herself in a different job) but then decide not to act on it. When exiting involves retiring, Super's (1990) Disengagement stage is relevant, as is Richardson's (1993) work on the personal and societal meanings of retirement.

Career Interventions

Having examined the six statuses of the INCOME framework and career development theory concepts that are applicable to each of these statuses, I present some examples of career interventions that are pertinent to each status. Because an individual may be in more than one status at the same time and statuses can occur and recur in any order (e.g., one may obtain a number of jobs before maintaining any job; or one can simultaneously maintain one job, imagine oneself in a different job, and seek to obtain a third, still different, job), the career counselor may have to engage in interventions aimed at several statuses at the same time or in rapid succession. For example, a client who lacks funds for food or shelter may have to deal with obtaining a paying job before taking the time to become informed of all preferable occupational options.

Moreover, the same intervention technique can serve different functions for persons in different statuses. For example, interest inventories can expand the range of options of which the person is aware for someone in the Imagining status, clarify areas of interest for someone in the iNforming status, narrow the focus for someone in the Choosing status, suggest related fields for someone in the Obtaining status, assist in planning next steps in career pathing for someone in the Maintaining status, and ease transitions by suggesting alternatives for someone in the Exiting status.

Finally, because there is good meta-analytical evidence concerning the effectiveness of different components of career interventions (S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000), all interventions should be structured to incorporate as many as possible of those five components determined to be most effective: "(1) written exercises, (2) individualized interpretations and feedback, (3) world of work information, (4) modeling opportunities, and (5) attention to building support for choices within one's social network" (S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000, p. 744). Given these caveats, I present some examples of interventions that address the issues associated with each status.

Imagining Interventions

Imagining, as the status in which the person becomes aware of the existence of work, occupations, and jobs that he or she was formerly unaware of, suggests the utility of interventions such as career awareness education, guided imagery, exposure to representations of occupations in one's immediate environment and in the mass media, and narrative approaches to career counseling that emphasize career as constructed life story (Cochran, 1997; Peavy, 1992). The first three of these interventions provide sources for new awareness, and the last of these interventions, narrative career counseling, facilitates the integration of newly discovered career possibilities into one's personal history.

iNforming Interventions

The status of iNforming is concerned with gaining knowledge of oneself and of the world of work. Relevant interventions include formal and informal career assessments and self-assessments; computerized self-assessments; career genograms; printed, video, and computer-based occupational and labor market information; feedback from academic and from career and technical education courses; informational interviews; job shadowing; volunteer experiences; hobbies; internships; and trial employment.

Choosing Interventions

Choosing is the status in which the person integrates the self-knowledge and career information that are then available to her or him and, on that basis, selects an occupation, job, or educational program. Relevant interventions include the application of decision-making models (e.g., Dudley & Tiedeman's, 1977, model for career exploration and commitment; Gati, Fassa, & Houminer's, 1995, sequential elimination approach; Lent et al.'s, 1996, social cognitive approach; Mitchell & Krumboltz's, 1996, learning theory of career counseling; Peterson et al.'s, 1996, cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making), decision-making aspects of computer-assisted career guidance systems such as DISCOVER (ACT, 2000) and SIGI Plus (Educational Testing Service, 1997), career development courses and workshops, transferable skills analysis, and counseling or mentoring to address family or peer pressure and environmental barriers.

Obtaining Interventions

In the Obtaining status, the person seeks and obtains a job in the field of his or her choice or in as closely related a field as possible. Relevant interventions include equipping the person with job search skills (locating job leads, networking, resume preparation, job interviewing skills, negotiating), obtaining training in required job skills, using employment or job placement services, participating in job fairs and job clubs, developing and using career portfolios, recognizing and advocating against barriers, and converting trial or probationary employment into a regular job.

Maintaining Interventions

Maintaining status involves adapting to, performing in, and sustaining an occupation or a job. Applicable interventions include life role analysis, career coaching, career pathing within the work organization, using feedback from performance reviews, participating in job-related continuing education, developing and using new skills as required by changes in the way the job is performed, consultation with and advocacy on the part of the person's employer to improve the job site or working conditions, and supportive follow-up with former career clients.

Exiting Interventions

Exiting status involves thinking about leaving or actually leaving (voluntarily or involuntarily) one's current position. Relevant interventions include job change counseling; transition counseling (Schlossberg, 1984); and, possibly, grief counseling in the case of involuntary exiting. Because exiting is frequently stressful, even in the case of a promotion, stress management training may be needed. If the postexiting goal is retirement, applicable interventions include preretirement counseling (Richardson, 1993) or retirement counseling (Jensen-Scott, 1993).

Applying the Framework

In applying this framework to select an appropriate intervention, the counselor must address three considerations. First, in which INCOME status or statuses is the individual engaged, and in which of these statuses is the problem located? A corollary to this consideration, if the individual is having simultaneous problems in more than one status, is which should be addressed first or should they be addressed simultaneously? The answer to this will depend on the relative severity and the interaction of the problems, as is the case in all types of counseling. That is, the decision on whether to first address the most severe problem, the easiest problem to solve, or the problem that is basic to the widest range of other problems depends on the client's personality and life situation. Second, when a career problem exists in a particular status, is it primarily caused by factors within the individual, by factors within the environment, or by a combination or interaction of the two? Career development inevitably involves the interaction between the individual and the environment. Family, school, peer group, work setting, subculture, and society provide expectations, values, options, barriers, and rewards that largely shape the goals and course of the individual's career development. At the same time, the individual's capacities and internal career agenda filter and reshape environmental influences. As Rounds and Tracy (1990) noted, "The process of PE fit is reciprocal, involving the individual shaping the environmental context and the environment influencing the individual" (p. 18). Third, what degree of intervention is needed to resolve the problem: facilitation or remediation (Hershenson, 1969)? Facilitation involves supporting natural career development processes to take their course, such as telling a student or client who is in the iNforming status about the Guide for Occupational Exploration (Farr, Ludden, & Shatkin, 2001) or other sources of occupational information, or helping a person in the Obtaining status prepare for a job interview. Remediation, however, involves working with the individual to change behaviors or environmental factors that impede the individual's career development process, such as helping a student or client in the Choosing status deal with domineering parents who are pressuring the person to enter an inappropriate occupation or working with the employer of a woman in the Maintaining status to eliminate a corporate glass ceiling.

Using these considerations, interventions that are appropriate to the client's problems in each respective status can be selected. For example, a displaced homemaker may have to deal with issues of giving up her former role (Exiting), determining her marketable skills and the workplace options that are open to her (iNforming), finding a job to meet her immediate financial needs (Obtaining), and then Maintaining that job while Choosing one more to her liking. Using the theoretical constructs associated with each of these statuses as an initial checklist, the counselor can explore the client's issues in each status. For instance, as the client is in the Exiting status, is she having problems with making the transition, with stress, or with grieving for her lost role as a homemaker? Once that is determined and the primary locus (in the person, the environment, or PE interaction) and severity (requiring facilitation or remediation) of the problem have been ascertained, status-appropriate interventions suggested by the framework can be applied. Thus, the counselor may use Schlossberg's (1984) transition counseling approach or stress management techniques to assist this client to deal with Exiting issues, may direct the client to self-assessment instruments and to local labor market information to address iNforming issues, and may help the client prepare a functional resume to assist in Obtaining a job. Then, the counselor could offer supportive counseling to help the client Maintain herself in her current job while teaching the client decision-making skills so that she can Choose a personally fulfilling occupation. Each intervention should incorporate as many of S. D. Brown and Ryan Krane's (2000) components of effective career interventions as possible. For example, the decision-making skills training could include written homework, occupational information, personalized feedback, and modeling.

Conclusion

The INCOME framework was designed to be inclusive, that is, to use constructs applicable to diverse clients (men and women, young and old, different ethnicities and sexual orientations, minority and majority cultural backgrounds, with and without disabilities), to encompass concepts from a wide range of career theories, and to suggest a variety of career interventions applicable to each status. Furthermore, the INCOME framework allows researchers to put theoretical constructs of career development and career interventions into a common frame of reference. The framework itself, its six constituent statuses, the actual relevance of the suggested interventions for each of these statuses, and the extent of applicability of the framework across diverse populations need to be empirically tested. At the same time, because INCOME is intended as a framework for organizing as broad a range of career theory concepts and interventions as possible, it would not be consistent with its function to compare the INCOME framework with any single theory or intervention. Part of the rationale for proposing INCOME is that no existing career development theory is a complete and comprehensive theory (Savickas & Lent, 1994) nor is there ever likely to be one. Moreover, by grouping constructs from a variety of theories within a single INCOME status, each status is necessarily broader in scope than any individual concept from any given theory. Interventions are only to be included within the INCOME framework if their effectiveness has been empirically demonstrated. Thus, the INCOME framework is not intended to replace any career theory or intervention. It is not in competition with them but seeks to integrate and enhance their contributions. When alternative frameworks are proposed, however, the merits of the INCOME framework should be tested against them.

References

ACT. (2000). DISCOVER [Computer software]. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Arbona, C. (1996). Career theory and practice in a multicultural context. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 45-54). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Arroba, T. (1977). Styles of decision-making and their use: An empirical study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 5, 149-158.

Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

Beveridge, S., Heller Craddock, S., Liesener, J., Stapleton, M., & Hershenson, D. (2002). INCOME: A framework for conceptualizing the career development of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 195-206.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.

Bordin, E. S., Nachmann, B., & Segal, S. J. (1963). An articulated framework for vocational development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 107-117.

Brown, D. (1996). Brown's values-based, holistic model of career and life-role choices and satisfaction. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 337-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740-766). New York: Wiley.

Cabral, A. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1990). Chance and careers: Normative versus contextual development. The Career Development Quarterly, 39, 5-17.

Cochran, L. (1997). Career counseling: A narrative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curnow, T. C. (1989). Vocational development of persons with disability. The Career Development Quarterly, 37, 269-278.

Danley, K. S., & Anthony, W. A. (1987). The Choose-Get-Keep model: Serving severely psychiatrically disabled people. American Rehabilitation, 13(4), 6-9, 27-29.

Dawis, R. V. (1996). The theory of work adjustment and person-environment-correspondence counseling. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 75-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dudley, G. A., & Tiedeman, D. V. (1977). Career development: Exploration and commitment. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Educational Testing Service. (1997). SIGI Plus [Computer software]. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Farr, M., Ludden, L. L., & Shatkin, L. (2001). Guide for occupational exploration (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: JIST.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Betz, N. E. (1994). Career development in cultural context: The role of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 103-117). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gati, I., Fassa, N., & Houminer, D. (1995). Applying decision theory to career counseling practice: The sequential elimination approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 211-220.

Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. L. (1951). Occupational choice: An approach to a general theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545-579.

Hall, D. T., & Associates. (1986). Career development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harren, V. (1979). A model of career decision-making for college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 119-133.

Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms's White and people of color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Helms, J. E., & Piper, R. E. (1994). Implications of racial identity theory for vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 124-138.

Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. (1996). Career guidance and counseling through the life span: Systematic approaches (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Hershenson, D. B. (1969). Techniques for assisting life-stage vocational development. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47, 776-780.

Hershenson, D. B. (1996). Work adjustment: A neglected area in career counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 442-446.

Hershenson, D. B. (2001, March). INCOME: An inclusive framework for conceptualizing career development. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Counseling Association, San Antonio, TX.

Hershenson, D. B., & Liesener, J. J. (2003). Career counseling with diverse populations: Models, interventions, and applications. In E. L. Szymanski & R. M. Parker (Eds.), Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement (2nd ed., pp. 281-316). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Jensen-Scott, R. L. (1993). Counseling to promote retirement adjustment. The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 257-267.

Johnson, R. H. (1978). Individual styles of decision-making: A theoretical model for counseling. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 531-536.

Katz, M. R. (1966). A model of guidance for career decision making. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 15, 2-10.

Krieshok, T. S. (1998). An anti-introspectivist view of career decision making. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 210-229.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1996). Career development from a social cognitive perspective. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 373-421). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leong, F. T. L. (1996). Challenges to career counseling: Boundaries, cultures, and complexity. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 333-346). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liptak, J. J. (2001). Treatment planning in career counseling. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Miller, V. M. (1999). The opportunity structure: Implications for career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36, 2-12.

Mitchell, L. K., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1996). Krumboltz's learning theory of career choice and counseling. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 233-280). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, L. K., Levin, A. S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected career opportunities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 115-124.

National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee. (1992). The National Career Development Guidelines project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Niles, S. G., & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (2005). Career development interventions in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Peavy, R. V. (1992). A constructivist model of training for career counselors. Journal of Career Development, 18, 215-228.

Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1996). A cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 423-475). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pope, M. (1995). Career interventions for gay and lesbian clients: A synopsis of practice knowledge and research needs. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 191-203.

Richardson, V. E. (1993). Retirement counseling: A handbook for gerontology practitioners. New York: Springer.

Roe, A. (1957). Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 212-217.

Rounds, J. B., & Tracy, T. J. (1990). From trait-and-factor to person-environment fit counseling: Theory and process. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling: Contemporary topics in vocational psychology (pp. 1-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Salomone, P. R. (1982). Difficult cases in career counseling: II. The indecisive client. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 496-500.

Savickas, M. L., & Lent, R. W. (1994). Introduction: A convergence project for career psychology. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 1-6). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Savickas, M. L., & Walsh, W. B. (1996). Introduction: Toward convergence between career theory and practice. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. xi-xvi). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory. New York: Springer.

Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Szymanski, E. M., Enright, M. S., Hershenson, D. B., & Ettinger, J. M. (2003). Career development theories, constructs, and research: Implications for people with disabilities. In E. M. Szymanski & R. M. Parker (Eds.), Work and disability: Issues and strategies, in career development and job placement (2nd ed., pp. 91-153). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Tiedeman, D. V. (1961). Decision and vocational development: A paradigm and its applications. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 40, 15-21.

David B. Hershenson, Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland-College Park. He is now at the Department of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Boston. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David B. Hershenson, 70 Park Street, Apt. 42, Brookline, MA 02446 (e-mail: [e-mail]).