A Critical Exploration of Assumptions Underlying STEM Career Development

The STEM Education Movement

The emergence of modern STEM education as an organized movement in academic, career, and policy contexts harkens back to the success of the first Soviet satellite (Sputnik) in 1957, which sparked U.S. (and Western) fears of losing its technological and military edge. These fears would lead to the expansion of the NSF and the passing of the National Defense Act, both of which have provided increased funding for STEM education. The United States hoped that this increased focus on STEM would create a workforce capable of turning the tide of the Cold War. The STEM education movement continues to evolve, building on its tradition of problem-based learning pedagogy that trains students in the disciplines of STEM (Carnevale et al., 2011; Mayln-Smith et al., 2017). As STEM education has expanded, some educators and scholars have proposed that the acronym encompass problem-solving skills and the ability to gather and evaluate evidence in a scientific manner beyond the scope of specific content areas (e.g., Bybee, 2013). The overarching goal of STEM education is to equip people with the skills needed to solve real-life problems from various social, economic, and environmental spheres within our society.

The current push for STEM education in the United States has been inspired by a number of factors. Numerous reports from government and public policy sectors have suggested a major shortage of people entering careers within STEM (e.g., National Academy of Engineering, 2018; National Science Foundation, 2017). On the surface, this shortage is particularly perplexing given both the considerable demand for STEM workers and the relatively high salaries that STEM careers provide. Reports also suggest that the U.S. performance in STEM education has declined on a global scale as reflected in a major international math and science assessment of the 35 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which indicated that the United States ranks 30th in math and 19th in science (OECD, PISA [Program for International Student Assessment], 2015). This is quite low, considering the position of the United States as a highly developed country with both a far-reaching economy and global influence. Evidence also points to a continued lack of representation in STEM careers and education within many sectors of the population (Committee on STEM Education, 2018; Fouad & Santana, 2017). This has led to an increased push for targeted pedagogical and career development interventions within these communities in an effort to increase diversity within STEM careers (Fouad et al., 2016). Thus, the current emphasis on STEM learning in education and career development can be seen as a response to these issues.

STEM Career Development

The focus on promoting interests and consideration of STEM fields taps into one of the core dialectical dilemmas in career development practice. To what extent should educators and counselors promote exploration of fields based to a significant extent on marketplace concerns? Historically, career development (or its earlier progenitor—vocational guidance) focused on helping youth and adults find a good fit in relation to the demands of the labor market. As such, developing career interventions to meet the needs of the marketplace has a significant historical lineage that reflected intentions to maximize options for people and to meet the needs of employers (Blustein, 2017). Over time, however, the economy grew and middle-class jobs emerged that required more training and education, which infused greater levels of choice and self-determination into the career development enterprise. By the middle to late 20th century, the discourse in career development shifted to an agenda that sought to help people find an optimal match in the world of work, which would allow for the expression of one’s interests, abilities, and values, as reflected in Holland’s (1997) person–environment fit theory. Although many students and workers still struggled to find jobs that could support their survival needs, the broad template of vocational guidance, and ultimately career development, took on a different shape and agenda—helping people find a way of engaging in work that supported their hopes, dreams, aspirations, and talents (Blustein, 2017).

Another set of historical trends emerged throughout the second half of the 20th century that reflected greater awareness of social, economic, and political factors that circumscribe interests and options for women, poor and working-class communities, individuals with disabling conditions, and for many members of racial and ethnic minority groups (Fassinger, 2008; Flores, 2013; Flores et al., 2019). Up until the mid-late 20th century, the career development culture had been based on a relatively laissez-faire approach with respect to the social and psychological factors that shaped and, in many cases, constrained the development and implementation of career plans (cf. Holland, 1997). Informed and inspired by feminist, civil rights, and social justice movements, career development scholars became actively engaged in studies and program development designed to combat the pernicious impact of social forces that have constrained access to socially mobile careers (e.g., Lent et al., 1994). The underlying assumption of this work has been that social science research coupled with public policy activism could help to reshape the socialization processes and social forces that circumscribe access to potentially stable and rewarding careers. The outcomes of this activist agenda included a number of features, such as research on the factors that affect the development of STEM interests and self-efficacy as well as programs that seek to facilitate the consideration of STEM careers (e.g., Flores et al., 2014; Kozan et al., 2017). In the section that follows, we review the underlying equity issues that inform and inspire many facets of the STEM career development movement.

Marketplace Issues and Career Development: Who Drives Career Choices?

Perhaps the most challenging question to emerge in a critical analysis of STEM career development is the role of the marketplace in shaping career options and opportunities for people. Without question, many people throughout time have made work-based choices based on survival needs (Blustein, 2017; Duffy et al., 2016). The emergence of the career development field began during an era when the focus was on helping people to adapt to the marketplace in a way that would optimize the fit between individuals and their occupational contexts. So, why should we be so concerned with marketplace demands shaping education and career development? One reason that we have highlighted this issue pertains to equity and the nature of interest expression. Despite the obstacles that exist in developing STEM careers, entering a career that is stable and sustainable represents an opportunity for individuals, their families, and communities to attain social mobility and security. However, marketplace demands may not be as central in the career development process for more privileged individuals who may be able to navigate the world of work with the benefit of access to financial resources and social capital.

While social messages about the importance of STEM careers are clearly part of the fabric of many Western educational and career development environments, these messages may have a differential impact on people who do not have easy access to opportunity. For example, individuals without much social and financial capital may experience the push toward STEM careers as an essential means of social and economic mobility and may feel pressured to examine these options. These messages may be particularly insidious for students of color in the United States and other Western nations who may learn that STEM is one of the only viable ways to enhance one’s social and economic opportunities. However, more privileged students may experience the messaging about STEM as simply one of many options to consider. Focusing so intently on STEM as a way to achieve mobility may collude with narratives that put more of a focus on individual agency as opposed to acknowledging and changing systemic structures in the process of career development and attainment. Underlying many of the barriers that have been noted in this article and the broader literature in STEM education and career development is the continued existence of institutional racism, which is manifested in each of the sectors of society that optimally should be supporting students to achieve their dreams (Byars-Winston, 2014; Flores et al., 2019).

One particularly important objective of STEM career development is to combat the pernicious influence of socialization factors that serve to circumscribe options for women and many youth of color. However, a counterpoint to these interventions may be that they are conveying that people should change their evolving identities and interests to suit the demands of the marketplace. As an example, consider a young high school age Black woman living in the United States who is developing a sense of herself as a helping professional, perhaps as a psychotherapist or minister. Although STEM skills are no doubt useful in mastering some of the content of these disciplines and in enhancing critical thinking, the underlying message may be that this student’s aspirations are not going to yield a rewarding or sustainable career.

In seeking to enhance STEM exploration, many career interventions focus on enriching students’ experiences with STEM content so that it is viewed as more interesting and relevant (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009; Kozan et al., 2017). Most theories of interest formation implicate both dispositional and contextual factors as playing important roles in the development of personality and interests (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Holland, 1997; Lent et al., 1994). Early vocational psychologists described interests as a manifestation of one’s personality—in effect, reflecting a core aspect of an individual’s identity (Holland, 1997). In that context, one could argue that trying to shape interests that are inconsistent with one’s emerging identity might be experienced as somewhat invalidating.

Indeed, the question of trying to influence one’s interests actually taps into two important points. First, how effective are career interventions in shaping one’s interests? Second, to what extent is this a useful and appropriate application of our skills and talents and career providers? The question of shaping students’ interests has been an undercurrent in the STEM career development field. Considerable research has examined the impact of STEM interventions on interest formation and the overall picture that has emerged is mixed. Some studies have demonstrated that student interest can be enhanced by creating curriculum models that will highlight the value of a particular subject such as math (e.g., Gaspard et al., 2015; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009). In addition, research emerging from SCCT has identified the importance of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and access to supports in predicting STEM-related career choices (Lent et al., 2018). Indeed, some empirical evidence has been presented affirming that SCCT-based interventions have been effective in fostering STEM interests in some intervention-based studies (Fouad & Santana, 2017).

Given the sophistication of theory and research on fostering STEM interests (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Lent et al., 2018; Rottinghaus et al., 2018), the intellectual tools do seem to exist to create effective STEM programs that will foster some degree of exploration and consideration of STEM careers. Despite the promise of many of these studies that point to modest shifts in interests, considerable research suggests mixed outcomes, with little consensus on which interventions are successful (e.g., Rosenzweig & Wigfield, 2016; Van den Hurk et al., 2019). An often neglected issue that underlies the research and evaluation studies on STEM interests is what may have happened to the students’ initial aspirations. To what extent may people be abandoning meaningful aspirations to fulfill expectations to join the upwardly mobile STEM world? Examining this question from the perspective of the recent antiracism movement highlights the often insidious ways in which Black and Brown people receive messaging and programming that, while ostensibly helpful, may ultimately limit the full expression of their dreams. Clearly, this question merits empirical research but also evokes careful consideration by career practitioners and scholars who are immersed in the STEM career development world.

The process of enhancing student interest may involve interventions that are designed to increase students’ extrinsic motivation for pursuing STEM. Extrinsic motivation is targeted because it is thought to be the most responsive to external interventions (Harackiewicz et al., 2016). However, extrinsic motivation may not be as robust or internalized within individuals, thereby leaving them perhaps disconnected from their intrinsic goals. In addition, research suggests that extrinsic motivation can often undermine one’s core interests (Deci et al., 1999). Thus, it’s fair to wonder if these interventions are truly increasing interests in a meaningful way.

In sum, the promise of STEM careers remains strong, especially in light of an expanding technology sector in many Western nations that are experiencing a great deal of employment growth. The growing level of inequality and erosion in the workplace (Blustein, 2019) coupled with the pervasive impact of underresourced schools and communities has created a conundrum. We clearly want all of our citizens to reach their potential and have a stake in the labor market. However, the drive to shape one’s interests in areas that are marketable may end up providing yet one more way that inequality, racism, and sexism serve to create different lives and opportunities for people. STEM career interventions are clearly helpful in challenging the aversive effects of racism and sexism. The downside is that these same interventions may be conveying that STEM is the preferred pathway to a rewarding and secure career, thereby leaving the communities of students and workers with diminished privileges and resources feeling that they do not have the same options as others with more social and financial capital. In the next section, we explore the STEM career development process from a more contextualized, critical, and systemic perspective, which are necessary lenses for this analysis.

Focus on Shaping Individuals for the STEM World

With some notable exceptions, the STEM career development movement has generally focused on working with individuals to move into courses and careers that can hopefully yield meaningful and rewarding work lives. However, as Byars-Winston et al. (2015) have noted, despite considerable efforts, the STEM workplace remains decidedly male and White. An unintended consequence of the STEM career development movement is that it may inadvertently convey that the task is for individuals to adapt to the environment without a similar effort by work environments to fully welcome diverse workers. Byars-Winston (2014) noted that the STEM environment is often perceived as White and male, which serves to marginalize those who have social identities that differ from the norms of the STEM labor market. In reality, what makes these environments “chilly” is not the tasks themselves, but the people and work culture (Fouad et al., 2016; National Academy of Engineering, 2018). Like many other aspects of our society, some individuals within given contexts may serve to create contexts that are cold, and even brutal for those who do not fit the stereotypes and identities that are privileged. The compelling scholarship from Byars-Winston et al. (2015), Fouad and her colleagues (Fouad et al., 2016), and many others (e.g., Jorstad et al., 2017; Simon et al., 2017) underscores a sad reality; encouraging people to consider STEM careers and supporting them as they develop these plans may yield less than optimal outcomes such as feeling isolated and alienated in the workplace. In these cases, the work context can serve as the major limiting factor in the movement to diversify STEM workplaces.

We are not proposing that the answer to the chilly climate problem is for our field to abandon its work on STEM career development. Rather, we argue that the career development community needs to adopt a more systemic perspective with respect to creating viable opportunities for all of our students and clients to achieve lives of meaning, purpose, and sustainability. One viable direction is for career researchers to build on the work of such scholars as Fouad, Byars-Winston, and others to conduct research on the nature of STEM educational environments and workplaces. By identifying the salient issues that are serving to marginalize new entrants to the field, career development researchers can inform academic and work environments and the broader social world about ways to maximize more inclusiveness in the workplace.

Building on systemic change models in career development (e.g., Blustein et al., 2019; Stead & Perry, 2012), we also propose that our field focus on creating structural changes in workplaces that ideally will result in more openness and affirmation of diversity in social identities. For example, workers who inhabit contemporary STEM contexts would benefit from diversity training that can eliminate implicit and explicit biases against women and colleagues of color. In particular, interventions that can help people understand how their behavior, attitudes, and actions may serve to marginalize diverse workers are critical, which would optimally include a serious focus on microaggressions and other forms of marginalization. We also urge career development and education advocates and practitioners to collaborate with organizational consultants and I/O psychologists who can provide advice about how to change the climate and norms within a given work culture. In addition, the long-standing problem of wage gaps for women and people of color in the labor market needs to be addressed at a macrolevel (passing the Equal Rights Amendment) and at the level of specific work organizations (Fassinger, 2008). Moreover, diverse ways of knowing and creating knowledge that reflect the cultural tenets of the full spectrum of workers at different stages of their careers need to be cultivated and affirmed.

Building on the systemic view, we also propose that cultural differences be affirmed in educational contexts. Middle school and high school students may be exposed to culturally rich and diverse curricula in many STEM programs; however, when they enter college, their STEM courses may not reflect this affirming and culturally relevant framework (Byars-Winston, 2014). In addition, students from underresourced schools may experience barriers related to their foundational preparation in STEM. Clearly, these educational attributes can be shifted dramatically in subsequent education and life experience. However, it is essential that students who struggle with STEM courses not be blamed for their experience. Rather, all students should be encouraged to examine the big picture of their lives and become critically conscious about the nature of systemic barriers, which unfairly affect individuals from underrepresented groups (Blustein et al., 2019).

Thus, although the focus on the context is clearly part of the discourse in STEM career development, we argue that this systemic perspective needs to become further embedded in practice, research, and public policy. By creating changes in STEM work environments, we may be able to expand and enrich the quality and quantity of students, and workers who may consider careers in these fields. At the same time, we will be able to make a compelling case that it is not just diverse students and adults who need to adapt to a rather rigid STEM world. The task of adaptation needs to include work organizations, educational systems, public policy, and the overall culture which has created STEM environments, which regrettably still convey marginalizing and oppressive attitudes and practices.

Where Does the STEM Push Leave Other Fields?

Interestingly, intentional movements within career development to infuse a specific targeted occupational outcome for students and clients within a given field are typically found in the STEM world. Yet the world of work is very diverse and fields that are also very much needed by our society, and economy may be marginalized in the STEM push. From the well-known vantage point of Holland’s (1997) personality and occupational typology, STEM fields would primarily be found within investigative fields, with some infusion of realistic and conventional fields (Holland’s theory established an empirically based person–environment fit theory and taxonomy of personality types and occupational environments that includes the following: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional; see Holland, 1997, for a review of this theory.) This leaves social, enterprising, and artistic fields, which are very much part of the personality fabric of humanity and an equally important part of the occupational world, but clearly not well represented in the STEM movement. The reality of the career options in these fields is complex but includes many fields that are vital and that are relatively robust in relation to future job growth. For example, the fields of counseling and education often have unfilled positions in the contemporary labor market and are seemingly unlikely to be replaceable by artificial intelligence at least in the short or medium term (Chui et al., 2016; Kennedy et al., 2016). Indeed, many in-demand fields involve caregiving, nurturing, artistic skills, crafts, and skilled trades (Deming, 2017; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019), albeit without some of the financial benefits that are available in STEM fields.

Adopting a critical lens, we wonder why government agencies and other policy leaders are not gearing up to promote career development programming to fill the many gaps in other sectors of the labor market. Indeed, the nature of the labor market during the COVID-19 and post-COVID era may be dramatically different, supporting the call for a more flexible approach to responding to labor market trends. One issue that merits attention is to consider who stands to gain from the STEM movement aside from the students and workers who clearly want to make a good living, optimally doing meaningful work. As reflected in the historical perspective reviewed at the outset of this article, the U.S. government had an investment in building up its STEM workforce in the late 1950s to maintain a military edge in the Cold War. At the same time, the private sector has had a deep commitment in enhancing the STEM pipeline to provide a scientifically trained workforce for innovative research and development, which has certainly helped to spawn massive growth in technology and wealth acquisition, albeit at some cost in the development of other non-STEM fields (Carnevale et al., 2011).

Harkening back to the aforementioned example of the young Black woman in high school with social-oriented interests, we can speculate that she may possibly perceive a skewed view of the advice of educators and career development specialists in STEM-infused programs and interventions. On one hand, she may learn that she should follow her emerging sense of identity and purpose—to work with people, support them, and perhaps minister to their spiritual needs. At the same time, she may learn that young women of color can break down boundaries and have a seat at the table of power and influence by pursuing a career that may be at odds with her interests and values. Of course, if she did in fact have nascent interests in STEM fields, a very different scenario might ensue, which might call for activist interventions designed to help her expand her exploration to connect to her evident but not sufficiently nurtured STEM interests (Lent et al., 1994). However, if she were fairly certain that she feels a calling for helping others in a direct and relational way, the nature of a STEM intervention could have unexpected aversive effects resulting in a feeling of guilt or regret for not considering STEM or perhaps abandoning the field that she seems to find so compelling.

The STEM movement may be viewed as taking up a lot of space in the career development field, creating an implicit message that these careers are more important than others. The long-standing issues of gender- and race-based discrimination in these fields clearly merit attention and critical systemic and individually based interventions; however, we argue that our field needs to consider the implications of the STEM movement creating such a strong push, resulting in unintended consequences for individuals and communities. The impact for the broader social and economic world is that other fields outside of STEM may not have the political clout to mobilize programming that would attract talented students to fields that are arguably as important as STEM careers. For example, efforts to attract students to teaching are underway with programs such as Teach for America; however, the presence of these important programs pales in comparison to STEM initiatives.

Moving from the individual to systemic vantage point, a critical analysis of the differential pay structures that exist in our labor market merits attention. The neoliberal economy values the use of free markets to set wages and salaries based on supply and demand (Blustein, 2019). However, the current status of caregiving fields, in general, has left economists deeply concerned about such issues as developing a sufficiently qualified and available pool of workers to fill all of the caregiving jobs that exist in our society (Osterman, 2017). We propose that similar scenarios are likely in other fields where salaries are relatively low and are not keeping up with the growth in the STEM fields. Although we do not propose any specific solutions for the varied salary structures that exist, we do believe that a critical analysis of the STEM career development movement needs to reflect on this issue and discuss its impact on how people construct their career plans.

Research

Many of the issues that we have raised in this article can be explored in greater depth in research. Questions regarding the impact of a particular sector of the labor market shaping such a significant aspect of the career development enterprise may be examined via qualitative and quantitative research about how counselors, students, and clients view these particular issues. In addition, research that explores how students and clients experience STEM interventions with respect to the possibility of feeling invalidated or coerced into a field that has a broad array of openings would be very useful in examining these issues in further depth. Research that can help to identify and unpack the nature of social messaging about STEM careers would also be very important in developing a sound framework for understanding the broader impact of the STEM movement on individuals and communities. Another promising line of research would be to explore how students who seem to have relatively well explored and crystallized interests in non-STEM fields fare in STEM career programs.

Practice

The implications for career practice that emerge in this article are multifaceted and of potential significance in developing ethical career interventions. The fundamental question of exposing students to STEM fields seems initially quite helpful. However, as the example that we have provided throughout this article attests (regarding the young woman with interests in social fields), the situation can be complex and far more nuanced. Given that the ethical commitments of the counseling and psychology communities require that we maintain the welfare of clients as our primary priority, the question of bringing up STEM careers for students who may not want to explore these options becomes more complex. At their best, STEM career interventions are not coercive and provide enriched and broad-based content and psychoeducation that can help to reduce career choice foreclosure and pushback at the insidious nature of gender- and race-based socialization. At the same time, career practitioners also need to be aware of the power differentials that exist in teacher-/counselor-led programs and interventions that may have the aura of authority. Consistent with our intention of developing a more critical perspective for the consideration of STEM career development, we suggest that counselors and educators strive to be aware of the complexity of the issues inherent in the STEM movement.

At the microlevel of working with clients, the critical analysis that we have offered suggests that counselors who are discussing STEM careers support their clients as they fully explore their options. The example of the Black high school student with strong social interests that we presented throughout this article provides a useful model for examining the nature of existing career plans for students and clients who may be participants in STEM career programming. Encouraging broad-based exploration of clients’ identities, interests, and values along with exploration of the world of work remains a key strategy that has served our field well for many decades (Flum & Blustein, 2000). We also advise counselors to use the excellent multicultural STEM-focused career interventions that Byars-Winston (2014) has developed, which include enhancing student awareness and skills in STEM and exploring structural and sociocultural factors in students’ consideration of STEM careers. We also recommend the Psychology of Working Counseling paradigm developed by Blustein et al. (2019), which serves as a means of integrating a social justice lens with counseling in developing interventions that embrace agentic action, social support, and critical consciousness. Taken together, the suggestions that we are proposing would be reflected in a client-centered approach that presents STEM content and careers as one of many vibrant and compelling paths toward meaningful and rewarding careers. That said, we do endorse the view that students need to learn STEM content well in order to manage their lives and to connect their efforts to the expanding array of technology-based careers across the full spectrum of fields.

Public Policy

This critically informed analysis has sought to identify the nature of the broader public investments in the STEM movement, which include social justice–based concerns about equity along with marketplace concerns about maintaining economic competitiveness and ensuring a military and technological edge. The reality of the public policy implications of STEM is complicated and involves multiple constituencies and communities. This article has sought to explore this complexity in a way that is fair, yet critical of existing practices and discourses. There are many practical reasons to support STEM career development, but there are also aspects of the movement that merit a critical lens. One viable recommendation that we propose is that policy statements and reports about STEM explore some of the issues that we have noted in this article and that have been raised in other critical analyses of STEM (Bazzul, 2011; Carter, 2016). In addition, we advocate policies that will support other growing fields, particularly those that directly affect human welfare, such as teachers, mental health professionals, nurses, and others who are integral to ensuring a fully humane and functional society.