Career barriers for social work students in China

Abstract

Summary

The current research aimed to develop a multi-dimensional scale on the career barriers of social work undergraduates in China. In Study 1, an open-ended survey (N = 202) and group discussion (N = 6) among social work undergraduates were conducted, which generated 37 items on career barriers. Based on these items, a scale was developed in Study 2 through a survey study among another sample of Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work (N = 415).

Findings

Results from principal component analysis revealed a three-factor structure underlying these items (attitudinal barriers, normative barriers, and control barriers). It was also found that attitudinal barriers and normative barriers served as significant predictors for satisfaction with academic major and occupational intention. Satisfaction with academic major also mediated the relations between these two types of career barriers and occupational intention. Results related to the predictive validity of control barriers were mixed.

Applications

These findings carry both theoretical and practical implications for career education and career counseling practices. This research developed a scale on career barriers for Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work. In career counseling practice, this instrument may serve as a tool to identify individuals' specific career barriers, and may guide counselor's further intervention for clients.

Keywords

Social work career barriers mixed methods occupational intention social work education students

Introduction

The social work occupation has existed in many Western countries over the last two centuries, but professional social work was suspended by the Chinese communist government from early 1950s to late 1980s (Li, Han, & Huang, 2012; Wong & Pearson, 2007). During this period of time, the discipline of social work ceased to be part of the university curriculum, and the profession of social work was no longer recognized as an occupational category (Kwong & Cheng, 2013). Since the early 1980s, China's economic reform policies have led to prosperity, but have also brought about various social problems in China. Chinese government gradually realized the necessity for comprehensive social welfare system staffed by social work professionals, as a way of maintaining political and social stability and keeping the economic engine running. It then started to develop a considerable number of educational programs in social work, to boost the growth of this occupation (Li et al., 2012; Yan & Tsang, 2005).

With government support, China has set up 310 baccalaureate social work programs, 60 specialized social work programs offered by vocational colleges, and 65 social work master programs (China Association of Social Workers, 2015). In spite of these prominent achievements, a growing body of literature has revealed that students in social work are faced with considerable career barriers, such as limited professional job opportunities for the graduates, little recognition of professional status, undesirable compensation and uncertain long-term career development opportunities (An & Chapman, 2014; Li et al., 2012; Sha, Wong, Lou, Person & Gu, 2012; Wong & Pearson, 2007; Yan & Tsang, 2005). Under such circumstances, only 10–30% graduates in social work will actually choose work in this occupation (Han, 2008). In addition, social work students prefer to directly move into administration and management positions, rather than the grassroots work that helps disadvantaged groups to solve their problems (Liu, Sun, & Anderson, 2013; Sha et al., 2012).

In recent decades, the public welfare sector has been subjected to major structural changes, and studies of various occupational groups within human service work have reported increased workload and a high prevalence of work-related stress (Astvik & Melin, 2013). As aforementioned, through descriptive or exploratory qualitative methods, existing studies have pointed out diverse career barriers for social workers, such as limited professional job opportunities for the graduates, little recognition of social workers' professional status, unclear professional identity, undesirable salary level, and uncertain long-term career development (An & Chapman, 2014; Sha et al., 2012; Yan, Gao, & Lam, 2013; Yan, Ge, Cheng, & Tsang, 2009). Despite the growth of literature on this topic, the analysis of career barriers for social workers is largely descriptive; as a result, there is still a shortage of research integrating these barriers into a comprehensive framework to systematically examine how these career barriers predict social work students' career-related attitudes in the Chinese context. This study seeks to address this research gap by developing a multi-dimensional scale using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. By doing this, the current research will not only contribute to the literature on career barriers, but will also help practitioners and policy makers to gain more insights on how to sustain the occupational intentions of social work students by reducing their career barriers.

Background

Theory and research on career barriers

Career barriers refer to the existing events or conditions, either within the person or from one's environment, that make one's career progress difficult (Swanson & Tokar, 1991a, 1991b; Swanson & Woitke, 1997). Career barriers arise from personal (e.g., gender, race, ability, self-confidence), contextual (e.g., opportunities, support, discrimination) or experiential (e.g., social pressure, modeling, prior failure/success) sources, and often lead to negative consequences in individuals' career development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Career barriers have been found inversely related to individuals' optimism (Creed, Patton, & Bartrum, 2004), career maturity (Lee, Lee, & Yu, 2008), self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1994), career decidedness, and vocational identity (Swanson & Woitke, 1997). Based on a systematic review of the literature on perceived barriers to career development, Swanson and Tokar (1991a, 1991b) identified a three-category classification system for career barriers, namely attitudinal, social/interpersonal, and interactional barriers. Attitudinal barriers refer to the difficulties related to one's self-concept, interests or attitudes toward work; social/interpersonal barriers are barriers regarding one's family, future marriage, and children (e.g., multiple roles); interactional barriers are difficulties related to demographic characteristics, preparation for one's career and the work environment.

A series of empirical studies were conducted to develop and revise the self-report career barriers inventory (CBI) among US college students (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996, Swanson & Woitke, 1997). The updated version of CBI consists of 70 items scored on 13 subscales, including sex discrimination, lack of confidence, multiple-role conflict, conflict between children and career demands, racial discrimination, inadequate preparation, disapproval by significant others, decision-making difficulties, dissatisfaction with career, discouraged from choosing non-traditional careers, disability/health concerns, job market constraints, and difficulties with networking/socialization (Swanson et al., 1996). These career barriers can be categorized into attitudinal (dissatisfaction with career), normative (sex discrimination, multiple-role conflict, conflict between children and career demands, racial discrimination, disapproval by significant others, discouraged from choosing non-traditional careers, job market constraints, and difficulties with networking/socialization), as well as the personal control (lack of confidence, inadequate preparation, decision-making difficulties, and disability/health concerns) barriers (Ajzen, 1991).

The present study

As the CBI was developed in the US background and mainly captures the general career barriers faced by college students (Swanson et al., 1996), it may not be suitable to measure social work students' career barriers in the Chinese context. Therefore, the current research will develop a new scale in this context based on qualitative and quantitative approaches. To avoid arbitrarily imposing previous models and the author' understanding of career barriers into the scale, items on career barriers were collected through a qualitative approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Open-ended survey and group discussion among Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work were conducted to collect the first-hand information and generate the item pool (Study 1). A quantitative study was then conducted to examine the factor structure and predictive validity of this measure (Study 2). When examining the predictive validity of career barriers, we selected satisfaction with academic major (Nauta, 2007) and occupational intention (Arnold et al., 2006) as two criterion variables.

Satisfaction with academic major has been found negatively associated with career choice anxiety, generalized indecisiveness, as well as the behavior of changing majors among US college students (Nauta, 2007). We expect there also exist negative relations between different aspects of career barriers and social work students' satisfaction with their major. As behavioral intention often serves as the immediate determinant of individuals' behavior (Ajzen, 1991), we also adopted occupational intention (Arnold et al., 2006) as another criterion variable. Students were asked to indicate their intention to be a social worker in the future. It was hypothesized that career barriers are negatively associated with students' occupational intention. Moreover, we also examined a mediation model in which satisfaction with academic major serves as the mediator between career barriers and occupational intention. That is, when students perceive a high level of career barriers, they may first form low satisfaction with their major; a lower level of satisfaction with major may in turn reduce their intention to work in the occupation of social work.

Methodology and research findings

Study 1: Item generation

Procedures and materials

Open-ended survey and group discussion were used to generate items on the barriers toward social work occupation in the Chinese context. An open-ended survey was conducted by asking faculty members from eight universities in China to collect data among undergraduates majoring in social work. The instructions were: “Please list the personal or environmental barriers that impede your intention to pursue a career in social work occupation after your graduation.” Participants were asked to fill in the blank with the factors they considered as important in impeding their occupational intentions. Open-ended responses were then collected among 202 undergraduates (80 males and 122 females) with an average age of 20.53 (SD = 1.53). As a result, 255 valid items on career barriers were obtained for the open-ended survey.

Items	Components
1. The career prospect of social work is uncertain.	.79
2. The career development opportunities for social workers are few.	.75
3. There only exist limited job opportunities for graduates in social work.	.73
4. The social status and prestige of social workers are not high.	.70
5. Social workers have low compensation and income from their work.	.69
6. Senior students in social work suggest me not to work in this occupation. 7. Many graduates in this major did not work as a social worker.	.63 .60
8. Many of my classmates have no intention of working on social work.	.58
9. I think social work has difficulty in employment.	.56
10. My peers and friends suggest me not to work as a social worker.	.55
11. My parents and relatives don't support the idea of being a social worker.	.53
12. Specialists suggest me not to work in the occupation of social work.	.49
13. I don't endorse the core values of social work.		.79
14. I have no empathy toward the targets of social work.		.78
15. I think social work has no social significance.		.77
16. I can't develop a sense of achievement during the study of social work.		.68
17. I have no interest in social work.		.67
18. What I've learned in the major of social work is not practical and can't fulfill the needs of society.		.65
19. I don't like the courses on social work.		.64
20. My personality and traits don't fit the occupation of social work.		.55
21. My ability and strength don't match the occupation of social work.		.53
22. What I've learned in this major is too broad and abstract.		.44
23. The courses can't help me to meet the requirements of social work.			.81
24. The content of courses can't develop my professional skills effectively.			.80
25. The quality of teaching can't develop my professional skills effectively.			.73
26. I lack practice opportunities to promote my professional skills.			.71
27. I can't find a good way to get employed in the occupation of social work.			.53
28. I haven't developed an in-depth understanding on social work.			.51

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age	20.54	1.24
2. Gender	1.63	.48	−.15**
3. Grade	2.16	.79	.71***	−.03
4. Status	2.71	.65	−.07	.13**	.05
5. Major satisfaction	3.12	.86	.04	.00	.12**	.09	.85
6. Occupational intention	2.60	.96	−.07	−.03	−.08	−.04	.46***	.94
7. Attitudinal barriers	3.80	.76	−.05	.01	−.07	−.11	−.69***	−.33***	.88
8. Normative barriers	4.28	.75	.02	.01	.00	−.07	−.44***	−.30***	.46***	.89
9. Control barriers	4.40	74	−.28***	.22***	−.28***	−.02	−.34***	−.02	.38***	.37***	.82

	Major satisfaction (N = 415)	Occupational intention (N = 415)
Age	−.04	−.05	−.04	−.03
Gender	−.03	−.00	−.07	−.05
Grade	.17	.13	−.05	−.07
Status	.10	.00	−.05	−.12
Attitudinal barriers		−.69***		−.33***
Normative barriers		−.19***		−.24***
Adjusted R²	.01	.49	−.00	.14
F	2.30	67.88***	.92	12.48***
ΔR²		.48***		.14***

	Occupational intention
Intercept	2.72	2.69	1.20
Control variables
Age	−.04	−.03	−.01
Gender	−.07	−.05	−.05
Grade	−.05	−.07	−.13
Status	−.05	−.12	−.12
Independent variables
Attitudinal barriers		−.33***	.00
Normative barriers		−.24***	−.16***
Mediator
Major satisfaction			.48***
Adjusted R-squared	−.00	.14	.23
F	.92	12.48***	18.98***
ΔR²		.14***	.09***

Item selection was conducted through a discussion between a PhD in social work and a PhD in I/O Psychology. By keeping one representative item for identical or highly similar items, 27 items were selected after this procedure (see Results for more details). A further discussion was held by a PhD in social work with six undergraduates in social work, to discover possible new items that were not covered by the open-ended results. The 27 items were shown to participants (three male students and three female students in social work) and participants were then asked to write up new items related to career barriers in social work. Ten new items were added through the group discussion.

In the last step, four raters, a PhD in social work, a PhD in I/O psychology, and two PhD candidates in I/O psychology were asked to categorize these 37 items into different groups. The instructions were: “Please read the following items describing the career barriers in social work, and categorized these items based on their meanings. Each item must be put into only one category. Please finish this task independently.” After each rater finished the independent rating, a group discussion was conducted to resolve the inconsistency across different raters. The results were reported below.

Results and discussion

The 27 items coded from the 255 open-ended responses are listed below according to their frequencies. There were nine items with a frequency higher than 10: “social workers have low compensation and income from their work” (N = 72), “I have no interests in social work” (N = 20), “the career prospect of social work is uncertain” (N = 19), “the society hasn't recognized the value of social work” (N = 18), “there only exist limited job opportunities for graduates in social work” (N = 15), “I don't like the courses in social work” (N = 14), “there exist difficulties in getting employment” (N = 14), “my ability and strength don't match the profession of social work” (N = 13), and “my personality and traits don't fit the profession of social work” (N = 11).

There were 11 items with a frequency higher than 1: “the career development opportunities for social workers are few” (N = 9), “social workers lack the scope for their abilities” (N = 8), “the workload of social work is high” (N = 7), “I don't endorse the core values of social work” (N = 6), “the social status and prestige of social workers are not high” (N = 6), “pursing this occupation can't help me to achieve my life goals” (N = 5), “the courses for social work major are not practical” (N = 3), “I can't see the social significance of social work” (N = 2), “it's hard to maintain work–life balance on this job” (N = 2), “the lack of practice opportunities to promote my professional skills” (N = 2), and “the quality of teaching can't develop my professional skills effectively” (N = 2).

There were seven items with a frequency of 1: “I can't develop a sense of achievement during the study of social work,” “I have no empathy towards the targets of social work,” “the course is boring,” “my parents and relatives don't support the idea of being a social worker,” “I haven't developed an in-depth understanding on social work,” “I can't take control of my future career development if I'm a social worker,” and “I can't find a good way to get employed in the occupation of social work.”

The new items generated from the group discussion with six social work students were: “the courses in social work major are too broad and abstract,” “the courses in social work major can't develop useful working skills,” “senior students in social work suggest me not to work in this occupation,” “my teachers suggest me not to pursue this occupation,” “my peers and friends suggest me not to work as a social worker,” “many graduates in this major did not work as a social worker,” “most of my classmates plan not to work in this occupation,” “specialists suggest me not to work in the occupation of social work,” “the courses can't help me to meet the requirements of social work,” and “the content of courses can't develop my professional skills in social work effectively.”

As a result of independent ratings and group discussion, three categories of career barriers emerged. The first category consisted of 15 items on the undesirable work characteristics (e.g., high workload, low work–life balance, low empathy toward the targets), unfavorable educational characteristics (e.g., courses are boring, not practical, too broad, and abstract), and the mismatch between personal preferences and the characteristics of the social work (e.g., not fitting one's interests, personality, ability, personal liking, goals, or values, low sense of achievement). This factor mainly reflected the attitudinal component of career barriers.

The second category included 15 items on the low societal recognition of social work (e.g., low compensation and income, low social status and prestige, limited job opportunities, uncertain career prospects, few career development opportunities, difficulties in getting employment, low recognition from society, lacking scope for abilities), as well as the social pressure from significant others (low endorsement from parents and relatives, senior students, my teachers, peers and friends, graduates, specialists). These items reflected the normative component of career barriers.

The third category included the remaining seven items related to one's concerns that they were able to control their career development, and the professional education may not effectively develop their professional skills and the understanding of social work. These items reflected the barriers related to behavioral control. In Study 2, quantitative approaches were adopted to examine the factor structure underlying these items and examine the predictive validity of career barriers for students' satisfaction with academic major and occupational intention.

Study 2

Participants

Participants were recruited among undergraduates majoring in social work from four large universities in China from January 2014 to June 2014. Faculty members in these universities were contacted and asked to help collect data from their students. Participants were instructed that the survey was anonymous and their responses would be used only for research purpose. A total of 415¹ undergraduate students (155 males and 260 females) majoring in social work completed the survey. Their average age were 20.54 (SD = 1.24). About 23% of participants were first-year undergraduates, 40% were second-year undergraduates, 35% were third-year undergraduates, and 2% were final-year undergraduates. According to the self-report family economic status, 30% of participants came from poor or very poor families, 65% came from middle income families, and 5% came from wealthy or very wealthy families.

Measures

Career barriers of social work

Participants were asked to read the 37 items generated from Study 1, and rate the extent to which they agree with the statements on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Academic major satisfaction

Academic major satisfaction was measured by the 6-item scale developed by Nauta (2007). A sample item was: “I often wish I hadn't gotten into this major” (reverse coded). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree with the statements on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The validity of the scale has been supported by its negative associations with career choice anxiety, generalized indecisiveness, as well as the behavior of changing majors among US college students (Nauta, 2007). The Chinese version of this scale was prepared for the present study. First, a professional Chinese translator translated the original items into Chinese. Then, a native English speaker with good Chinese proficiency was asked to back-translate these items. After the two translators compared the back-translation with the original scale and refined the Chinese translation through discussion, the final Chinese version was produced. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was .85.

Occupational intention

Occupational intention was by the five items adopted from previous studies (Ajzen, 1991; Arnold et al., 2006). A sample item was: “I plan to be a social worker.” Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree with the statements on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was .94.

Demographic information

Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, grade, and family economic status.

Principal component analysis for the items on career barriers

The sample size to item ratio of 11 to 1 meets the minimum recommended requirement for obtaining stable factor solutions (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). Principal components analysis with oblique rotation was performed on the 37 items. Based on several criteria including minimum eigenvalues, drops in the scree plot, and interpretability of factors (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986), a three-factor solution was selected, which supported the framework of the theory of planned behavior. By using a criterion of .40 for the minimum loading of items, two items were dropped due to weak loadings to their principal factors and seven items were dropped due to sizable double loadings (.40 or above) to other factors. Twenty-eight items were kept as the final solution after the item selection process, which explained 49.77% of the total matrix variance (Table 1).
Table 1.
Rotated Component Matrix of norm, attitude and control.

Items Components

1 2 3

1. The career prospect of social work is uncertain. .79

2. The career development opportunities for social workers are few. .75

3. There only exist limited job opportunities for graduates in social work. .73

4. The social status and prestige of social workers are not high. .70

5. Social workers have low compensation and income from their work. .69

6. Senior students in social work suggest me not to work in this occupation. 7. Many graduates in this major did not work as a social worker. .63 .60

8. Many of my classmates have no intention of working on social work. .58

9. I think social work has difficulty in employment. .56

10. My peers and friends suggest me not to work as a social worker. .55

11. My parents and relatives don't support the idea of being a social worker. .53

12. Specialists suggest me not to work in the occupation of social work. .49

13. I don't endorse the core values of social work. .79

14. I have no empathy toward the targets of social work. .78

15. I think social work has no social significance. .77

16. I can't develop a sense of achievement during the study of social work. .68

17. I have no interest in social work. .67

18. What I've learned in the major of social work is not practical and can't fulfill the needs of society. .65

19. I don't like the courses on social work. .64

20. My personality and traits don't fit the occupation of social work. .55

21. My ability and strength don't match the occupation of social work. .53

22. What I've learned in this major is too broad and abstract. .44

23. The courses can't help me to meet the requirements of social work. .81

24. The content of courses can't develop my professional skills effectively. .80

25. The quality of teaching can't develop my professional skills effectively. .73

26. I lack practice opportunities to promote my professional skills. .71

27. I can't find a good way to get employed in the occupation of social work. .53

28. I haven't developed an in-depth understanding on social work. .51

Note. Only loadings larger than .40 are presented.

The first factor accounted for 19.31% of the total variance, and was labeled “normative barriers” since the items in this factor tapped the extent to which individuals perceived societal pressures (e.g., compensation, career development opportunities, status) or social pressures from significant others (e.g., parents, specialists, friends) that impedes their intention to pursue their career in social work (12 items). The second factor accounted for 17.60% of the total variance (10 items), and was labeled “attitudinal barriers” since the items in this factor mainly tapped the personal evaluations of the major and occupations of social work (e.g., whether social work fits one's interests, values, goals, and preferences). The third factor accounted for 12.86% of the total variance (six items) and was labeled “behavioral control barriers” since these items tapped the sense of control in pursuing the profession of social work (whether the education enables them to grasp the professional knowledge and skills, whether they can control the career development in social work occupation). The α coefficient was calculated for each factor as a test of internal consistency, with the following results: normative barriers, α = .89; attitudinal barriers, α = .88; and behavioral control barriers, α = .82.

Descriptives and correlations

The descriptive statistics and correlations among variables were displayed in Table 2. The results showed that academic major satisfaction was negatively related to attitudinal barriers, r(415) = −.69, p < .001; normative barriers, r(415) = −.44, p < .001; and behavioral control barriers, r(415) = −.34, p < .001. Occupational intention was negatively related to attitudinal barriers, r(415) = −.33, p < .001; normative barriers, r(415) = −.30, p < .001; but not control barriers, r(415) = −.02, ns. Academic major satisfaction and occupational intention was positively related to each other, r(415) = .46, p < .001. The three factors of career barriers were also correlated with each other, attitudinal and normative barriers, r(415) = .46, p < .001; attitudinal and control barriers, r(415) = .38, p < .001; normative and control barriers, r(415) = .37, p < .001.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 20.54 1.24

2. Gender 1.63 .48 −.15**

3. Grade 2.16 .79 .71*** −.03

4. Status 2.71 .65 −.07 .13** .05

5. Major satisfaction 3.12 .86 .04 .00 .12** .09 .85

6. Occupational intention 2.60 .96 −.07 −.03 −.08 −.04 .46*** .94

7. Attitudinal barriers 3.80 .76 −.05 .01 −.07 −.11 −.69*** −.33*** .88

8. Normative barriers 4.28 .75 .02 .01 .00 −.07 −.44*** −.30*** .46*** .89

9. Control barriers 4.40 74 −.28*** .22*** −.28*** −.02 −.34*** −.02 .38*** .37*** .82

Note. **p < .01, ***p < .001. Reliability coefficients appear on the diagonal in bold.

Regression analysis

To examine how the three types of career barriers collectively predicted outcome variables, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. To predict academic major satisfaction, participants' gender, age, grade, and family economic status were entered in Step 1 to control main effects. In Step 2, the three types of career barriers were entered (Table 3). As shown in Table 3, after controlling the effects of demographic variables, attitudinal barriers (β = −.69, t = −15.29, p < .001) and normative barriers (β = −.19, t = −4.09, p < .001), served as significant predictors for students' academic major satisfaction (ΔR² = .48, p < .001).
Table 3.
Hierarchical regression analysis: predicting major satisfaction and occupational intention by controlling variables and three factors of TPB (N = 415).

Major satisfaction (N = 415)
Occupational intention (N = 415)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age −.04 −.05 −.04 −.03

Gender −.03 −.00 −.07 −.05

Grade .17 .13 −.05 −.07

Status .10 .00 −.05 −.12

Attitudinal barriers −.69*** −.33***

Normative barriers −.19*** −.24***

Adjusted R² .01 .49 −.00 .14

F 2.30 67.88*** .92 12.48***

ΔR² .48*** .14***

Note: The coefficients are standardized β weights. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

As occupational intention was not correlated with control barriers, only attitudinal and normative barriers were used to predict this outcome. The results showed that attitudinal barriers (β = −.33, t = −5.02, p < .001) and normative barriers (β = −.24, t = −3.69, p < .001) served as significant predictors for students' occupational intention (ΔR² = .14, p < .001).

Examining the mediation role of major satisfaction

The above analysis showed that both attitudinal and normative barriers made unique contributions in predicting career satisfaction and occupational intention. To examine whether academic major satisfaction mediated the effects of these two types of career barriers, we adopted the procedure proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). They suggested three criteria to justify a mediation effect. Firstly, the independent variables should significantly correlate with mediator variable. Secondly, after controlling the effect of the independent variable toward dependent variable, the correlation between mediator variable and dependent variable should be significant. Thirdly, the indirect effect from independent variable to dependent variable should be significant.

Before analyses, all continuous predictors were centered. As shown in Table 4, after controlling the effect of participants' gender, age, grade, and family economic status, both attitudinal (β = −.69, t = −15.29, p < .001) and normative barriers (β = −.19, t = −4.09, p < .001) significantly predicted major satisfaction. Second, we should find out whether major satisfaction had significant effects on students' intention after controlling the effects of demographics and the predictors. As Table 4 shows, we then incorporated major satisfaction into the model, and discovered that it positively predicted students' intention to be a social worker in the future.
Table 4.
Examining the mediation effects of major satisfaction.

Occupational intention

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Intercept 2.72 2.69 1.20

Control variables

Age −.04 −.03 −.01

Gender −.07 −.05 −.05

Grade −.05 −.07 −.13

Status −.05 −.12 −.12

Independent variables

Attitudinal barriers −.33*** .00

Normative barriers −.24*** −.16***

Mediator

Major satisfaction .48***

Adjusted R-squared −.00 .14 .23

F .92 12.48*** 18.98***

ΔR² .14*** .09***

Note. The coefficients are standardized β weights. N = 415.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Finally, to calculate the indirect effects, we adopted the SPSS micro PROCESS. The results showed that the indirect relationship between attitudinal barriers and intention through major satisfaction was significant (95% CI = [−.45, −.23]) and major satisfaction fully mediated this relationship. In addition, major satisfaction partly mediated the relation between normative barriers (95% CI = [−.15, −.04]) and intention.

Discussion

The current research developed a scale on the career barriers of Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work. A three-factor scale was developed by using qualitative and quantitative approaches. The results showed that the three factors (attitudinal barriers, normative barriers, and control barriers) were distinct to each other, and captured important aspects of career barriers for Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work. It was also found that attitudinal barriers and normative barriers served as significant predictors for satisfaction with academic major and occupational intention. Satisfaction with academic major also mediated the relations between these two types of career barriers and occupational intention. Results related to the predictive validity of control barriers were mixed. Besides, the results also carry implications for career education and career counseling practices.

Theoretical implications

The current research developed a scale on career barriers for Chinese undergraduates majoring in social work. Through opened-survey and group discussion among social work students, items on career barriers were generated without discarding or assuming away relevant factors. The career barriers scale consists of three dimensions: attitudinal barriers, normative barriers, and control barriers. Although the three factors of career barriers were correlated with each other, the results of principal component analysis showed that these three factors were distinguishable. The current framework of career barriers also incorporated the elements of career barriers identified in previous research (An & Chapman, 2014; Sha et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2009, 2013), which suggest that this factor structure can serve as a useful framework to guide research on career barriers. Future research should continue to examine whether the results revealed in current study could be generalized to students in other majors.

The results showed that attitudinal barriers negatively predicted both the satisfaction with major and occupational intention, which was consistent with the previous research on the significant effects of attitude on behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991). These results suggest that when students perceive a high level of congruence between characteristics of social work education and occupation with their own interests, values, abilities, and goals, they tend to form positive satisfaction with major and occupational intention. Therefore, it is important to identify effective ways of decreasing attitudinal barriers, in order to sustain students' satisfaction and occupational intention. Future research should continue to examine how the attitudinal barriers predict other important objective (e.g., salary, promotions) and subjective (e.g., career satisfaction) career outcomes.

The results showed that normative barriers negatively predicted the two outcome variables, above and beyond the prediction of attitudinal barriers. These significant relationships suggest that when students perceive the low recognition from society, as well as the low support from significant others; they may develop a low level of satisfaction with the major and are less willing to pursue their careers in the social work occupation. These results highlight the important roles of environmental pressure in students' career planning and career preparation. As the current research focused on the perceived barriers among students, future research should continue to examine whether there exist observational bias in students' ratings of these environmental barriers. Future research should also examine the individual and contextual antecedents of perceived normative barriers, to strengthen the understanding on this topic. In addition, investigations on the effective ways to cope with these barriers in pursuing one's career in the occupation of social work also carry great theoretical and practical implications.

This study also examined the dynamic relations among these variables by examining the mediation role of satisfaction with academic major for the relations between career barriers and occupational intention. The results support the hypotheses that satisfaction with academic major serves as the key explanatory link between career barriers and occupational intention, which suggests that when students perceive a high level of attitudinal and normative career barriers, they tend to evaluation their academic major negatively, which in turn may motivate their intention to quit the major or the occupation of social work. These results suggest that satisfaction with major serves as an important proximal predictor for occupational intention and future research should examine how to promote students' satisfaction with major by integrating more personal and contextual factors. In addition, the results also showed that the effects of normative barriers were only partially mediated by satisfaction with major, which suggest the existence of other mechanisms in this process and this possibility remains to be examined in future research.

In addition, it was found that control barriers were not significantly related to satisfaction with academic major in regression analysis, and were not correlated with occupational intention. These results suggest that the effects of career barriers related to one's behavioral control on outcome variables are not stable. It's possible that a high level of behavioral control may strengthen one's occupational intention by boosting one's self efficacy, and also impede one's occupational intention by inducing the perception of over-qualification or underemployment (Fine & Nevo, 2008; Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006). It is also possible that these mechanisms are further qualified by other factors. In sum, the role of control barriers in students' satisfaction with academic major and occupational intention should be examined rigorously in future work.

Practical implications

The findings of this current research carry important practical implications as it provides an empirical foundation to analyze career barriers of social work in China. The number and type of barriers that one perceives can be a limiting factor in career choice and implementation (Swanson et al., 1996), and the construct of perceived career barriers could serve as an important and useful explanatory variable in career instruction and counseling. First, in career counseling practice, this instrument may serve as a tool to identify individuals' specific career barriers, and may guide counselor's further intervention for clients in terms of career development. Second, the current research supported the idea that a low level of attitudinal and normative barriers would be beneficial for students' satisfaction with their major and occupation intention. When individuals score higher on these two dimensions, it is to some extent necessary to have some interventions to alter individuals' views on these barriers. These predictors suggest areas for more attention to considering students' attitude toward social work in student admission, curriculum design and field practice. Third, social work educators and employers need to pay attention to the consequences of mismatches between motivations and expectations about what professional practice involves (Stevens et al., 2010). It is important to consider the factors that motivate students to train as social workers in order to better inform recruitment policies and ensure that the profession attracts potential talents (Furness, 2007). As China's social work profession is expected to continue expanding in scope for the next decade, an increase of career development is vitally needed. The normative barriers revealed in the current research also emphasize the important roles of government and social institutions in promoting social workers' compensation, social recognition, employment, and career development opportunities, as a way to promote their occupational intentions.

Limitations of the research

Despite the theoretical and practical implications discussed above, there are limitations in current research. Since participants were asked to complete all the measures at the same time point by using self-report method, there may exist common method variance in current findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Future research should confirm the findings of the current study by using multiple reports and methods. Second, our analyses were based on cross-sectional data and we cannot draw causal conclusions from current results. Career barriers, satisfaction with major and occupational intention may be reciprocally related to each other rather than one causing the other. Future research should utilize experimental or longitudinal designs that can address questions of causality. In addition, as the current research was conducted among a sample of students from several universities in China, it's possible that the career barriers discovered in current research may not represent the career barriers of other social work students in China. In addition, future research should also examine whether the current research findings could be replicated in other countries or whether there exist cultural differences in career barriers among social work students. Finally, future research regarding career barriers could benefit from extending to various types of research subjects, including social workers who are advancing in career or college students of different majors.

Conclusion

The present study is inspired by framework constructed by different scholars (Ajzen, 1991; Swanson & Tokar, 1991a; Swanson & Woitke, 1997), including the concept of career barriers and the way of examining career barriers through a multi-category classification inventory; while it differs from the previous research in the regard of factor structure/theoretical framework,² research subject and methodology, thus it carries different theoretical and practical implications. In particular, the existing studies did not emphasize on students' major, and there is no career barrier scale designed particularly for social work students. Through integrating career barriers into a comprehensive framework, the current study can examine how these barriers predict social work students' career intention and then offer relevant practical implications.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was approved and supported by Beijing Social Science Union, China [ref number 2012010303].

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank all the staff and students who assisted with the survey. Their cooperation, hospitability and kindness were much appreciated. The author is also quite grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

References

1.
Ajzen I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Decision and Human Decision Process 50: 179–211.

2.
An Q. Chapman M. (2014) The early professional experience of a new social worker in China. Journal of Social Work Education 50: 322–333. doi:10.1080/10437797.2014.885266.

3.
Arnold J. Loan-Clarke J. Coombs C. Wilkinson A. Park J. Preston D. (2006) How well can the theory of planned behavior account for occupational intentions? Journal of Vocational Behavior 69: 374–390. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.006.

4.
Astvik W. Melin M. (2013) Coping with the imbalance between job demands and resources: A study of different coping patterns and implications for health and quality in human service work. Journal of Social Work 13(4): 337–360. doi:10.1177/1468017311434682.

5.
China Association of Social Workers. (2015). 2014 National report on social work development. Retrieved from http://news.swchina.org/industrynews/2015/0316/21002.shtml.

6.
Creed P. A. Patton W. Bartrum D. (2004) Internal and external barriers, cognitive style and the career development variables of focus and indecision. Journal of Career Development 30: 277–294. doi:10.1023/B:JOCD.0000025116.17855.ea.

7.
Fine S. Nevo B. (2008) Too smart for their own good? A study of perceived cognitive overqualification in the workforce. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19: 346–355. doi:10.1080/09585190701799937.

8.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291–314.

9.
Furness S. (2007) An enquiry into students' motivations to train as social workers in England. Journal of Social Work 7: 239–353. doi:10.1177/1468017307080355.

10.
Glaser B. G. Strauss A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

11.
Guadagnoli E. Velicer W. F. (1988) The relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin 103: 265–275. doi:10.1177/0013164404267287.

12.
Han S. (2008) Careers barriers behind the spring of social work. Observation and Thinking 5: 46–47. (in Chinese).

13.
Kwong J. Cheng C. (2013) Social work education and professionalism. Chinese Education and Society 46: 3–6.

14.
Lee S. H. Lee S. M. Yu K. (2008) A typology of career barriers. Asia Pacific Education Review 9: 157–167. doi:10.1007/BF03026496.

15.
Lent R. W. Brown S. D. Hackett G. (1994) Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45: 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.

16.
Li Y. Han W.-J. Huang C.-C. (2012) Development of social work education in China: Background, current status and prospect. Journal of Social Work Education 48: 635–653. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2012.201100049.

17.
Liu M. Sun F. Anderson S. G. (2013) Challenges in social work field education in China: Lessons from the western experience. Social Work Education 32: 179–196. doi:10.1080/02615479.2012.723682.

18.
Maynard D. C. Joseph T. A. Maynard A. M. (2006) Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 509–536.

19.
Nauta M. M. (2007) Assessing college students' satisfaction with their academic majors. Journal of Career Assessment 15: 446–462. doi:10.1002/job.389.

20.
Podsakoff P. M. MacKenzie S. B. Lee J. Y. Podsakoff N. P. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

21.
Preacher K. J. Hayes A. F. (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

22.
Sha W. Wong Y. Lou W. Person V. Gu D. (2012) Career preferences of social work students in Beijing and Shanghai. Social Work Education 31: 4–21. doi:10.1080/02615479.2010.538672.

23.
Stevens M. Sharpe E. Moriarty J. Manthorpe J. Hussein S. Orme J. Crisp B. R. (2012) Helping others or a rewarding career? Investigating student motivations to train as social workers in England. Journal of Social Work 12: 16–36. doi:10.1177/1468017310380085.

24.
Swanson J. L. Tokar D. M. (1991a) College students' perceptions of barriers to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior 38: 92–106. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(91)90020-M.

25.
Swanson J. L. Tokar D. M. (1991b) Development and initial validation of the Career Barriers Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 39: 344–361. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(91)90043-L.

26.
Swanson J. L. Daniels K. K. Tokar D. M. (1996) Assessing perceptions of career-related barriers: The Career Barriers Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment 4: 219–244. doi:10.1177/106907279600400207.

27.
Swanson J. L. Woitke M. B. (1997) Theory into practice in career assessment for women: Assessment and interventions regarding perceived career barriers. Journal of Career Assessment 5: 431–450. doi:10.1177/106907279700500405.

28.
Wong Y. Pearson V. (2007) Mission possible: Building social work professional identity through fieldwork placements in China. Social Work Education: The International Journal 26: 292–310. doi:10.1080/02615470601049883.

29.
Yan M. Gao J. Lam C. (2013) The dawn is too distant: The experience of 28 social work graduates entering the social work field in China. Social Work Education 32: 538–551. doi:10.1080/02615479.2012.688097.

30.
Yan M. Ge Z. Cheng S. Tsang K. (2009) Imagining social work: A qualitative study of students' perspectives on social work in China. Social Work Education 28: 528–543. doi:10.1080/02615470802368959.

31.
Yan M. Tsang K. (2005) A snapshot on the development of social work education in China: A Delphi study. Social Work Education 24: 883–901. doi:10.1080/02615470500342314.

	Major satisfaction (N = 415)		Occupational intention (N = 415)
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2
Age	−.04	−.05	−.04	−.03
Gender	−.03	−.00	−.07	−.05
Grade	.17	.13	−.05	−.07
Status	.10	.00	−.05	−.12
Attitudinal barriers		−.69***		−.33***
Normative barriers		−.19***		−.24***
Adjusted R²	.01	.49	−.00	.14
F	2.30	67.88***	.92	12.48***
ΔR²		.48***		.14***

	Occupational intention
Variables	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Intercept	2.72	2.69	1.20
Control variables
Age	−.04	−.03	−.01
Gender	−.07	−.05	−.05
Grade	−.05	−.07	−.13
Status	−.05	−.12	−.12
Independent variables
Attitudinal barriers		−.33***	.00
Normative barriers		−.24***	−.16***
Mediator
Major satisfaction			.48***
Adjusted R-squared	−.00	.14	.23
F	.92	12.48***	18.98***
ΔR²		.14***	.09***