CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Modern academia stands at a crossroads

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed

toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the

individual towards freedom.” –Albert Einstein

Modern academia stands at a crossroads of contesting opinions related to the goals and

outcomes of higher education (American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2018; National

Academy of Sciences, 2018), which have brought attention to the utilitarian perceptions of

certain degrees. Those in favor of the liberal arts and humanities cite the employability of the

problem-solving, critical thinking, and qualitative literacy skills developed in the courses

(AAC&U, 2021; Anders, 2017; Emsi, 2081b). Others, however, argue that the lack of real-world

application, job identification, and occupational awareness overshadow humanities students’

employability and render a career gap for graduates (Jaschik, 2018). Amidst this background

within higher education, humanities degrees have become regarded as less rigorous and less

employable than their STEM counterparts (Chambliss &Takacs, 2014; Jaschik, 2018; Newman,

2021). Given the debate, it is evident that the broad and holistic development emphasized in the

liberal arts and humanities are not always welcomed within the backdrop of standardized

occupational and pedagogical paradigms focused only on job specific skills.

Despite the often harsh examination of liberal arts and humanities degrees, students and

graduates in these majors remain satisfied with their degree choices as well as their careers

(American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2018). Surveys and research confirm that humanities

and liberal arts graduates have sought-after holistic soft skills that employers prefer when hiring

(AAC&U, 2021, 2014; Coffey et al., 2020; Emsi, 2018b; Gallup Inc., & Busteed, B., 2015;

Long, 2018) – even in times of high unemployment, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic

(Fain, 2020). In addition, humanities students with terminal bachelor’s degrees earn comfortable

salaries and often peak in profitable and authoritative positions (Anders, 2016; Jaschik, 2018;

Ruggeri, 2019). Unfortunately, however, when compared to their peers in other degrees,

humanities graduates often take longer to peak in employment and pay – around ages 56 to 60.

Furthermore, when they do peak later in their careers, their salaries remain about 20% lower than

colleagues in science and engineering (Anders, 2016).

Perhaps in relation to lower salaries, liberal arts and humanities degrees are on the decline

in higher education (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018; Moody, 2022; Strada &

Emsi, 2018a). The closure of various liberal arts colleges and the downsizing or cuts of

humanities fields have contributed to lower humanities graduation rates (Dutt-Ballderstadt, 2019;

Moody, 2022; Newman, 2021). Although the fewer numbers of humanities graduates should

increase marketability, humanities students are largely disadvantaged by the excess time they

take in career identification and decision-making. The easier concepts of degree-to-job relation

allow students pursuing other majors more direction and goal commitment when choosing future

careers (Leppel, 2001). Likewise, the negative rhetoric surrounding the lack of employability of

humanities degrees can also shape and alter students’ self-efficacy, which can impact and slow

their career decision-making (Jo et al., 2016).

Students require high self-efficacy with informed direction regarding workforce value so

that they can grow in career development and begin to take action steps towards achieving their

career goals. If a student demonstrates low self-efficacy, research demonstrates that he or she is

less likely to make a career decision (Galles, et al., 2019; Jo, et al., 2016). In fact, various studies

have indicated and supported career self-efficacy’s connection to decision-making and career

choice (Betz et al., 2005; Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 1983; Conklin et al., 2013; Foltz

& Luzzo, 1998; Lent & Brown, 2020), and its influence in related actions (Bandura, 1992;

Schwarzer, 2014).

Career actions towards final decision-making are pivotal to expediting employment and

career success (Betz & Luzzo, 1996), and students know this. In a national survey, about 60% of

first-year college students thought it was important to think about a career goal; unfortunately,

only 25% indicated they clearly knew how to achieve their career goal (Cuseo, et al., 2020).

Students often pursue higher education with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage in

preparedness for future careers and employment, and typically seek majors that correlate with

industries (Chuang et al., 2009). However, growing research demonstrates students’

misunderstanding of what is required of them to achieve degrees and career goals (HERI, 2019);

and the absence of a corresponding career title may make career choice more ambiguous to

humanities students and cause them to continue higher education rather than seek employment.

However, with a growing 59% unemployment rate for humanities PhD graduates, it would be

more profitable for students to seek employment rather than pursue graduate education

(Hartman, 2020). Accordingly, there remains a career gap for liberal arts and humanities

graduates who demonstrate a longer period of maturation before making a career decision and

settling into what is considered gainful employment (AAC&U, 2012). Likewise, the negative

backdrop of opinions and rhetoric surrounding degrees without career titling could influence

students’ perceptions of future employability and shape their career decision-making selfefficacy

(Betz & Luzzo, 1996).

Problem Statement

Given current data, humanities students in majors without corresponding job titles may

lack the necessary self-efficacy to choose a satisfying career. As research demonstrates, there is

connection between self-efficacy and action (Bandura, 1992; Schwarzer, 2014), which can

impact behavior, commitment, and aspirations (Arghode, et al., 2021). Higher self-efficacy

equates to faster career-decision making and has been linked to more career action steps or

planning. Lower self-efficacy delays career development and career maturation (Bandura,

1994), and can negatively impact individuals socially and professionally (Chuang, et al., 2020).

Therefore, students with high self-efficacy are more likely to take the necessary steps to finding

and achieving a satisfying career.

Although there have been studies associated with self-efficacy differences within certain

populations and students’ major status, no research has examined a humanities student

population or a humanities population with the qualifying element of a major/degree

unassociated with a career title. Humanities degrees are on the decline worldwide, reaching the

lowest numbers since 1987 (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2021). The declining

number of humanities degrees and the gap of extended time in career decision-making of

humanities students (Jaschik, 2018) pose a growing problem for future employers and students,

especially since career indecision can negatively impact students’ personal and professional lives

(Chuang, et al., 2020). Although employers are seeking the skills humanities students possess,

graduates are taking longer to make career decisions and are not witnessing the transferability of

the skills gained with their degrees. In addition, humanities majors are more likely to be

unemployed when compared to other college graduates within their graduation year (American

Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2015).

Therefore, this study sought to identify whether or not career decision-making

selfefficacy scores predicted career action steps, and if student demographics influenced results.

Further, the use of the CDSE-SF instrument on an undergraduate humanities student population

has not been explored or applied prior to this study. Thus, this study sought to address the

lacking research related to career decision-making self-efficacy of humanities students and

contributed to relevant research examining demographic differences and self-efficacy

relationships across a specific population of students. Career decision-making self-efficacy of

humanities students is necessary research related to a population with marketable career skills.

Inclusion and examination of career action steps increased the rigor of the study by examining

whether or not students with lower self-efficacy also completed fewer action steps, as

selfefficacy has been shown to influence action (Schwarzer, 2014). Set amidst the backdrop of

the global pandemic, this research provided insights related to challenging environmental and

educational environments, offering relevant information related to students’ career development.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore relationships within career decision-making

self-efficacy and career action steps of undergraduate humanities students in majors that do not

have corresponding career titles (English, Philosophy, Anthropology, and History), in order to

discover populations and areas that require further career preparation.

In this study, self-efficacy referred to the personal perceptions of abilities and capabilities

that can influence events and performance, such as career decision-making (Bandura, 1994).

Career action steps are comprised of the career development actions an individual takes in order

to progress towards his/her initial career goal. The self-efficacy scores were measured using the

CDSE-SF instrument correlated with demographics. The career action steps were measured

using the validated survey and correlating the scores with demographics and CDSE-SF subscale

scores. Correspondingly, the following research questions were explored in the study:

1.) What is the relationship between humanities student participants’ demographics (age,

gender, major, race/ethnicity, year, first-generation status) and their career action steps?

2.) What is the relationship amongst humanities student participants’ demographics (age,

gender, major, race/ethnicity, year, first-generation status) and CDSE-SF instrument score

and subscale scores (Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection,

Planning, and Problem Solving) and the dependent variable career action steps?

3.) What is the relationship between student demographics (age, gender, major,

race/ethnicity, year, first-generation status) and the CDSE-SF score and each of the

subscale scores (Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and

Problem Solving)?

Conceptual Framework

The research questions for this study were informed by the conceptual framework of

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent, et al., 1994), Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura,

1977), and Career Maturity Theory (Crites, 1973). SCCT addresses the ways in which

individuals view career interests and make career decisions. SCCT links educational and work

performance to four psychosocial variables: general cognitive ability and skill sets, outcome

expectations, self-efficacy beliefs, and goal mechanisms (Brown, et al., 2011). SCCT recognizes

the impact of contexts such as gender, race, culture, learning experiences, work experiences, and

academic experiences as career behavioral influences (Chuang et al., 2009).

The Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE), developed by Betz and Taylor

(1983), evaluates individuals’ self-efficacy in relation to career choices and contexts. The scale

was created through the theoretical bases of Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977) and Career

Maturity Theory (Crites, 1964, 1973). Crites’ Career Maturity Inventory (CMI) (1965) measures

individuals’ career maturity, which shapes career choices and decisions. The Career Maturity

Inventory includes five career competencies that are directly analogous to the CDSE subscales.

In conjunction, the subtests/subscales of Self-Appraisal, Occupational information, Goal

selection, Planning, and Problem solving relate to the career maturity and development (Crites,

1973). Higher career maturity is linked to vocational decisions, actions, and problem solving

(Crites, 1973). Each of the items on the career action step survey employed in this study

correspond with Crites’ underlying career maturity concepts. Crites’ Career Maturity Theory

expands upon prior theories that were limited in time and dimension (Crites, 1973). The

integration of the theory with Betz and Taylor (1983) augments career development research and

further authenticates the CDSE instrument. As Betz and Luzzo (1996) explain:

The conceptualization and measurement of career decision-making self-efficacy

involved the integration of two major theories, one originally stemming from

clinical-social psychology and the other having its origins in counselingvocational

psychology. (p. 415)

The CDSE-SF survey instrument aligns with the conceptual framework of social

cognitive career theory and the psychological/psychosocial stimuli associated with the theory. In

addition, the career action step survey corresponds with SCCT focus on individuals’ academic

and career choices and success in their academic and work goals (Brown, et al., 2011). The

CDSE-SF composite subscale scores were correlated with career action step survey results. The

alignment of SCCT principles with career decision-making self-efficacy and career actions

towards goals led to the development of the purpose and research questions of this study and

provided the basic premise for the exploration of demographic variable influence. The

conceptual premises provided by SCCT connect to this study’s investigation of variation in

demographic self-efficacy career decision-making actions of humanities students and the

development of the career action step questions. Drawing from the theories of SCCT (Lent, et

al., 1994), Self-efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977), and Crite’s Career Maturity Theory (Crites,

1973), the variables underlying the conceptual framework for this study are depicted in Figure 1.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is the dual impact of exploring self-efficacy relationships

within the humanities field and examining the career development action steps of students in said

field. The value of associations amongst career decision-making self-efficacy and career action

steps, with measurement of demographic influence, offers evidence of areas and populations that

required further career strategies. Informative data surrounding this population and variables

demonstrated possible connection amongst factors that can impact student career decisionmaking

and significantly contribute to future career preparation practices. Minimal (if any) research

existed on the career decision-making self-efficacy of the humanities student population prior to

this study. The lack of associated career title with the chosen humanities degrees further limited

Figure 1

. Conceptual Framework Model.

Career Action

Steps

Career development

year planning

Research of jobs and

costs

CV/Resume

Job shadowing

Career counseling

Internships

Career programming

events

Demographic

Variables

Age

Gender

Year

First

Gen status

Major

Self

efficacy

Overall Score

Self

Appraisal

Occupational

Information

Goal Selection

Planning

Problem Solving

relevant research, as this population had not been previously explored. However, as literature

supports, self-efficacy can affect student task completion, career decision-making, career

satisfaction, and overall career development (Betz & Luzzo, 1996). Thus, this exploratory study

examined whether or not relationships existed amongst career decision-making selfefficacy and

career action steps within this population demographics and filled a necessary void of

investigation, especially amidst a high unemployment rate and global pandemic in which

“human skills” are seen as highly employable (Coffey, et al., 2020). In addition, the application

of a career action steps survey allowed for an exploratory, preliminary use of the instrument and

its evidence.

The data were measured through the CDSE-SF scale and a novel 10-question career

action step survey. This research presents a platform for future study of career development and

humanities students, especially amongst years in college and major/degree. Given differences

within majors and years, this may indicate certain humanities majors evincing stronger

selfefficacy or more career actions than others. Likewise, given significant difference amongst

firstgeneration students and other respondents, this could call for additional research related to

firstgeneration humanities students’ self-efficacy and the career decision-making self-efficacy of

first-generation students, overall.

In addition, this study allowed for a novel investigation of humanities students’ career

self-efficacy and career action steps. The exploration of relationships amongst self-efficacy and

career action revealed connections that serve as indication of self-efficacy influence in student

career actions towards goals, as indicated by Bandura (1992). By intentionally examining

humanities on its own terms rather than as inferior to career-oriented professional degrees, the

inquiry examined this population by understanding it on its own terms validated by its internal

significance rather than an external context. The results of this study will help to inform

humanities educators and future humanities career pedagogy to better address the academic and

occupational needs of specific majors and the humanities population overall.

Delimitations and Limitations

This investigation was delimited to several variables and characteristic constructs. First,

the study was delimited to location of a public university located in Southwest Florida, due to the

feasibility of existing collaborations established between the investigator and the institution, and

potential for future studies. This study was also delimited to the use of 4 different humanities

degree programs: English, Philosophy, Anthropology, and History. This investigation was

delimited to the use of traditional, college-aged students between the ages of 18-24, who are

enrolled as majors in the four specific English, Philosophy, Anthropology, and History degrees

during the Spring 2021 semester. Lastly, this study was delimited to the use of the CDSE-SF

instrument and career action step survey in measuring self-efficacy and career decision-making.

Although great consideration was given to the creation, design, and methodology of this

study, there were some potential limitations. First, the primary investigator’s background is

principally in the field of English, not Philosophy, Anthropology, or History, which could have

demonstrated bias towards English students. A second possible limitation was that the diversity

of the students enrolled in all of the course sections was unknown; thus, there may or may not

have been significant differences in demographics and/or socioeconomic backgrounds that may

have affected the outcomes upon data collection. Similarly, it was not known in advance how

many students would consent to participate in this study. This in turn led to a lower than

expected sample size of participants that could have negatively affected the power of the

statistical tests. Another possible limitation of this study included the potential misconceptions

regarding humanities degrees, studies, and practices by the enrolled subjects. This quantitative

survey research used a purposive, convenience sample, rather than a random sample, which may

have posed inquiry limitation of design. As Singh (2007) notes, reactivity, or respondents’ bias

to give “feel good” responses, and non-response rates may be a weakness of the survey method.

Definition of Terms

Career development: Skills or employability-based education (Watts, 2006). “Career

development is the process of acquiring and experiencing planned and unplanned activities that

support attainment of life and work goals (McDonald & Hite, 2016, p. 4).

Career action steps: The direct actions an individual takes in order to be successful in his/her

future initial career choice and goals.

CDSE-SF: Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale Short Form assessment (Betz, Klein, &

Taylor, 1996), normed as a shorter form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale

developed by Betz & Luzzo, 1996).

First- Generation: Although defined in many ways (R. Evans, et al., 2020), first-generation will

serve as a term to define a student whose parents or legal guardians did not attain a higher

education diploma (i.e., - a parent or legal guardian did not graduate from college or university).

Humanities: “The branch of learning concerned with human culture (OED b.). Humanities is

often used to describe the academic subjects of English/literature, History, Philosophy, Art,

Languages, Anthropology, Journalism, Communication, History.

Liberal arts education: Pedagogy rooted in traditions of the seven subjects of the trivium

(grammar, rhetoric, and logic) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy)

(OED).

STEM: An acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education. Self-

efficacy: Personal perceptions of abilities and capabilities, which can influence events and

performance. “Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and

behave. Such beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major processes. They include

cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes” (Bandura, 1994, p.1).

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The non-scientists have a rooted impression that the scientists are shallowly optimistic, unaware

of man's condition. On the other hand, the scientists believe that the literary intellectuals are

totally lacking in foresight, peculiarly unconcerned with their brother men, in a deep sense

antiintellectual, anxious to restrict both art and thought to the existential moment. –C.P. Snow

According to a 2018 study conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the

American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), 66 percent of higher education

students believed that they had the necessary critical analytical employment skills.

Unfortunately, only 26% of employers agreed (Long, 2018). More recently, only 6 in 10

employers felt as though recent graduates possessed the necessary skills for entry-level positions

in their organizations (AAC&U, 2021). Given the perception disparity and metacognition gap,

career readiness of college students remains a critical component of higher education. In fact,

the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) defines career readiness using eight

key competencies: Critical Thinking/Problem Solving, Oral/Written Communications,

Teamwork/Collaboration, Digital Technology, Leadership, Professionalism/Work Ethic, Career

Management, and Global/Intercultural Fluency (NACE, 2021). Each of these competencies

aligns with humanities and liberal arts learning outcomes (AAC&U, 2021; Arum & Roska,

2011). However, many modern practices within higher education demonstrate the view that

career preparedness is only found in college classes that align with specialized skills.

Misconceptions contribute to the metacognition gap of students seeking employment, in which

they feel they are more prepared than employers believe (Long, 2018).

The dialogue surrounding the value of liberal arts and humanities education and their

application within future occupations has brought attention to career perceptions within the

humanities, creating a need for students and professionals to reconcile conflicting opinions

regarding skill and career development. The following literature review will present an overview

of humanities and liberal arts education (defined, and then used interchangeably to demonstrate

their holistic pedagogies). The review will also offer perspectives regarding perceptions

associated with humanities and their workforce application. In addition, an overview of the

Gottfredson and Bandura theories and their significance to self-efficacy and career decision

making within the conceptual framework of SCCT will be discussed as a means of synthesizing

the possible career decision-making self-efficacy and career action steps towards career choices

and goals of humanities students representing diverse demographics.

The Liberal Arts and Humanities

The term “liberal arts,” though often used interchangeably with the “humanities,” refers

to the classical, liberal education tenants of grammar, logic, rhetoric, known as the Trivium

(National Academy of Sciences, 2018). With the incorporation of arithmetic, geometry, music,

and astronomy, the pedagogy is titled the Quadrivium, and is employed in various modern higher

education institutions (National Academy of Sciences, 2018). Liberal Arts education began in

the Hellenistic Age and developed in the 5th century. Preliminary pedagogy is attributed to

classical thinkers such as Socrates and Plato (Kimball, 1986; Rose, 2015) and furthered by

thinkers such as Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

Thomas Huxley, John Henry Newman, and Matthew Arnold, who established the first

universities of higher education (Glaude, 2018; Kimball, 1986; Rose, 2015). The founders of

contemporary education believed in a holistic pedagogy that integrated various forms of

education that included academic, moral, and social teaching. However, as industry and

workforce trends began influencing education, Western pedagogy replaced philosophy and

theology with manufacturing and technology.

The United States of America built much of its early workforce through the establishment

of public schooling. In the early 1700’s and 1800’s, the U.S. focused its job and skill training on

apprenticeships, which became formalized through trade schooling later in the 1800’s (ACTE,

2018). One of the most influential Western breaks with classical liberal arts education was the

adoption of the Morrill Act in 1862. The Morrill Act created national land-grant universities so

that American students, who were previously learning the trades of agriculture and mechanics

from their families, could now attend colleges for training in these skills (National Academy of

Sciences, 2018).

With the rise of the Industrial Age in the early 1900’s, trade schools became more

popular, and the education-workforce collaboration became stronger. Although still grounded in

its agricultural and maritime roots, the U.S. economy quickly grew to include manufacturing and

entrepreneurial big business. Exports became much more prominent, and the Industrial

Revolution greatly expanded the U.S. economy and economic efforts (ACTE, 2018). Alongside

manufacturing and trade growth, career education grew. Pedagogical philosophers such as John

Dewey and Charles Sanders Pierce gained renown during this time for their calls for

pragmatic/experientialist education, in which students would learn in traditional classrooms

through first-hand experience and practice (Cohen, 1999). These concepts transformed

nineteenth-century education and ensured practical application and hands-on learning in trade

and industrial fields, with the first training school being established in 1879 (ACTE, 2018;

Cohen, 1999). As career and workforce education became more and more popular amongst

manufacturers, various employers created apprenticeship programs to help students develop

labor and academic skills, which directly shaped the economy and workforce. For example, the

General Electric Company (GE) established a labor-specific apprenticeship system in 1902,

which gave students on-site training and labor skills to complement their traditional schooling

(AVJ, 1976).

Economic and workforce trends shaped the education trends, and vice versa, throughout

the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This created the foundation for modern U.S. career

and workforce education (CWE). In 1906, the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial

Education was established, receiving strong support from the American Federation of Labor.

These groups, among other trade unions, were largely responsible for the passing of the Smith-

Hughes Act of 1917, which further linked workforce and education efforts by creating the

Federal Board for Vocational Education. This Act allowed for Federal funding of vocational

teacher salaries (AVJ, 1976). The establishment of the American Vocational Association in 1926

(renamed the Association for Career and Technical Education in 2001), also associated industry

with pedagogy (ACTE, 2018) and further promoted economic connection to education. With the

onset of World War II (WWII), economic efforts shifted largely to manufacturing. Those who

were trained in manufacturing trades, and those who were willing to be trained, were assigned to

war-industry jobs to learn the necessary hard-skills for these trades (AVJ, 1976). The impact of

the War quickly educated and trained much of the U.S. workforce in hard skill labor, including

women who worked stateside supporting those overseas.

After years of augmentation of the liberal arts, the twentieth century brought a drastic

change for Western higher education philosophy and pedagogy. The trends of career training

broke from the classical underpinnings, and higher education segregated disciplines in terms of

teaching and funding. As the National Academy of Sciences 2018 report supports, “Institutions

of higher education both shaped and were shaped by this move toward increasing specialization”

(2018, p. 26). Thus, the term “humanities” was adopted and has come to describe both modern

and classical education in the fields of literature, history, philosophy, language, anthropology,

jurisprudence, archaeology, religion, ethics, and the theory of the arts, to study the human

environment and conditions with particular attention to reflecting our diverse heritage, traditions,

and history (National Endowment for the Humanities, 2020). The National Humanities Center

(NHC) explains, “Put simply, the humanities help us understand and interpret the human

experience, as individuals and societies” (NHC, 2020).

With the labeling and sequester of classes, American colleges began seeing a decline in

humanities fields relative to other studies as a result of economic trends and expectations (Hearn

& Belasco, 2015). In 1971, Secretary of Education Sydney Maryland stated that all education

should be associated with future career aspirations (Bellucci, 1981). Maryland’s beliefs took

shape and became nationalized within six months through the development of the Bureau of

Adult, Vocational, and Technical Education, and the National Association for Education Research

and Development (Bellucci, 1981). The Education Amendments of 1972 and 1974 brought a

wave of career-focused pedagogy to American colleges and universities (Bellucci, 1981).

Funded from a federal level through the Center for Career Education (1973), occupational

education offered grants and support for classes designed for career learning

(Bellucci, 1981). Perhaps the largest proponent of vocational education was the Director of the

Office of Career Education for the U.S. Department of Education, Kenneth Hoyt. In 1975, Hoyt

distinguished eleven areas that served as a catalyst for educational reform. These included: 1.)

perceived lack of appropriate skills of graduates; 2.) lack of relational-awareness between school

learning and future career; 3.) lack of educational equality for minority students; 4.) inadequate

worker preparation; 5.) unsuccessful school-to-work transitions; 6.) inequality of representation

of women in the workforce; 7.) a need for continuing education; 8.) insufficient formal

education; 9.) lack of business community involvement in education; 10.) inadequacy in meeting

the needs of minority students’ education; and 11.) not enough emphasis on non-baccalaureate

programs post high school graduation (Bellucci, 1981). Alongside changing federal attitudes

towards education, various economic and social opinions changed as well. As Hearn and

Belasco (2015) explain, changes included labor market demands for specialized skills, an

external shift toward economic goals, increased enrollment of nontraditional students who

historically prefer more vocational training, and financial aid policies which offered faster

payback in occupational programs. The changing economic trends made the sociohistorical

impact of humanities seem obsolete, and have bridged to the twenty-first century.

Of all of the workforce education Acts passed post WWII, the Carl D. Perkins Act of

1984, was perhaps the most instrumental. Readopted in 1990 (Perkins II), 1998 (Perkins III),

2006 (Perkins IV), 2018 (Perkins V), the Perkins Act established Federal funding and grants, as

well as creation and oversight of multiple career and workforce education programs. Alongside

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Perkins Act continues to regulate

American education, today (US DOL, 2018).

Humanities in the Workforce

Arguments for the needs of appropriate career education have not much changed in

contemporary society. Hard skill labor training is still necessary for many jobs. However, one

large difference between twentieth and twenty-first century education is the way in which career

pedagogy now manifests a much larger role within higher education institutions that were

formerly only liberal arts. In many ways, modern academia presents the liberal arts as

subordinate, instead of congruent to, occupational education (Seemiller & Grace, 2016).

However, the labor market and humanities need not be mutually exclusive. Negative perceptions

through funding allotment and rhetoric reinforce divisions and promote science, technology,

engineering, and math (STEM) education (Jaschik, 2014). In an environment in which more and

more liberal arts colleges are facing dwindling enrollments and budget constraints or closures

(Strada & Emsi, 2018a), it is clear that Hoyt’s arguments of the 1970’s propagated opinions that

continue today.

Since the start of their decline in the 1970’s, liberal arts colleges have been faced with the

challenge of defending their foundational curriculum. A more recent definition of the liberal arts,

supported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, defines liberal arts as curriculum

“designed to prepare students for a variety of career options, rather than for a specific

occupation” (Angeles & Roberts, 2017, para. 6). Other definitions claim courses in the liberal

arts and humanities are “typically thought as non-technical and non-scientific” (College

Consensus, 2020), which rhetorically lowers their inquiry status and reputation. Many modern

philosophers feel as though the term “liberal arts” outdates the value of the degree and can lead

to misunderstandings of purely political and art education. Corrigan (2018) notes: Of course, as

most humanities professors will maintain, we must avoid vocationalism —

reducing education to job preparation. But we also must avoid avocationalism —

acting as if the humanities have nothing to do with job preparation, as if

humanities degrees are mainly for enriching weekend trips to art and history

museums. (para. 16)

For this reason, it has been suggested that “liberal arts” be rebranded to “universal” or a more

equally inclusive label (Flaherty, 2019). The concern over title rests in the perception of

inferiority associated with term. By rebranding, liberal arts may be able to re-enter modern

academia professional discourse with a restored and updated reputation; but doing so breaks the

title with the foundation of higher education.

Amidst such efforts, the future of liberal arts and humanities is of concern for many in the

field of practice. In order to remain soluble, many colleges are undergoing cuts and closures in

humanities disciplines such as “languages, history, religious studies, English, music, theater,

sociology and anthropology -- subjects often referred to as the heart of the liberal arts”

(DuttBallderstadt, 2019, para. 20). Especially given the global pandemic of the COVID-19

Corona virus, many educators are predicting further decline and closures of liberal arts colleges,

paired with cuts to the humanities (Mintz, 2020). Some educators are even calling for a two-year

hiatus in humanities doctoral admissions (Hartman, 2020).

Whether caused by economic or societal influences, the current reality is that humanities

degrees are on the decline, with English and History degrees showing a loss of 25% (American

Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018, 2021; Strada & Emsi, 2018a). This trend has affected the

studies at all levels, as students seeking doctoral studies in the humanities have bleak job

prospects in a field with diminishing careers (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018;

Hartman, 2020; MLA, 2017). Likewise, if left unguided, many humanities majors may

misunderstand their degree-to-job relation and believe that their degrees lead only to teaching

occupations. Citing research from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community

Survey, Angeles and Roberts (2017) list a variety of employable examples for humanities majors.

The authors, somewhat misguidingly, cite degrees such as Economics and Graphic Design as

humanities, and offer diverse career options. However, when discussing the true humanities

majors such as English and History, the top occupation for both, is Education (Angeles &

Roberts, 2017; College Consensus, 2020). This perception may lead many humanities majors to

wonder: Why choose the humanities and liberal arts instead of just majoring in education?

Perhaps more enlightened advocates of the humanities and liberal arts note the field’s

ability to provide students with well-rounded and holistic education that promotes civil discourse

and prepares students for a diverse array of occupations. As Rose (2015) notes:

The liberal arts can help impart the intellectual virtues of wisdom, science, and

understanding, those habits that help students make sound judgments about necessary

truths. These are excellences of the intellect in its speculative capacity and so aid a pupil

in arriving at knowledge of a demonstrated Scientia. (p. 57)

Courses that teach students a broad range of skills directly correlates with employer needs. What

is perhaps most important about liberal arts and humanities degrees and programs is their

inclusion of “soft,” “core,” “people,” or “success” skills, such as problem-solving, critical

thinking, leadership and communication (Angeles & Roberts, 2017, Cuseo, et al., 2020Dey &

Cruzvergara, 2019). These skills can be found on the “Employability Skills Framework”

provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career and Technical Education, and

are essential for successful career employment (US DOE, 2020), and in the NACE Career

Competencies (2021). As a means of measuring humanities students’ acquisition of these skills,

the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) offers data demonstrating that humanities majors

outperform their business major and other peers in these critical learning areas (Arum & Roska,

2011). In fact, these skills are among the most in-demand across the labor market (Emsi, 2018b).

Long (2018) explains:

The World Economic Forum predicted that in the year 2020, critical thinking

skills will rank second among 10 sought-after hiring competencies; and a NACE

(2014) survey of employers nationwide similarly ranked critical thinking skills as

the second most important career-readiness competency. (p. 1)

It is evident that these skills are highly valued by employers, as “More than 90% of

employers rate written communication, critical thinking, and problem solving as ‘veryimportant’

for the job success of new labor market entrants,” (Arum & Roska, 2011, p. 143); and over the

past 30 years, the fastest growing jobs in the United States have all had social/soft skill

requirements (Ruggeri, 2019). Even amidst the Corona virus COVID-19 global pandemic,

communications, problem-solving, teamwork, and critical thinking all remain in the top six most

commonly requested job skills in employment postings (Fain, 2020). Perhaps this is because

humanities majors are taught to consider varying opinions, possibilities, and opportunities. This

taught-and-learned critical thinking allows humanities majors to be more open-minded. In fact,

students with liberal arts degrees rooted in humanities courses are less likely to express

authoritarian preferences and attitudes compared to those with degrees in fields such as business,

mathematics, technology, sciences, or engineering (Redden, 2020). In addition, according to

research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, when humanities curriculum has been

integrated with STEM in various studies, positive outcomes such as increase in student

motivation, communication, creating thinking, and synthesis of ideas, as well as improved

teamwork, increased appreciation, and improved employment opportunities have all been

reported (2018). With an adaptable skill set and value for open-mindedness, humanities majors

gain career readiness and are posited for employment success; and many employers recognize

this (AAC&U, 2021).

Although a vast number of corporations recruit employees with job-specific skills,

research demonstrates that employers prefer students with academic achievements as well as

credentials (Arum & Roska, 2011). In fact, some companies go so far as to directly and

intentionally recruit humanities degree students. Large, well-known companies such as Fidelity,

Vanguard, Morningstar, Dodge and Cox, Deloitte, and McKinsey, all seek out and employ

graduates with diverse humanities degrees, noting their skill transferability (Anders, 2017). In

addition, 15% of humanities major graduates go on to management positions (Ruggeri, 2019). In

fact, a recent study of 1,700 people from 30 countries found that the majority of those in the

study who held leadership positions also held a humanities or social science degree (Ruggeri,

2019). This number increased when the individuals were under 45 years of age (Ruggeri, 2019).

It should be no surprise then, that the Co-founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, has a Master’s

degree in philosophy from Oxford and the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard holds undergraduate

degrees from Stanford in philosophy and medieval history (Chideya, 2015). It is possible that

the reputation of the individuals’ universities contributed to their employment success; but labor

market research firms such as Emsi, affirm that soft and holistic skills are highly marketable and

adaptable even in fields such as business, technology, engineering, and healthcare (Coffey et al.,

2020).

Even with so many employers seeking these core skills, students seem to be unaware of

their importance in their education. Seemiller and Grace explain:

The desire for real-world preparation is echoed by more than one-third of

business leaders who believe that higher education does not adequately help

students develop critical skills necessary for the workplace (2016, p. 219).

For this reason, it is crucial that educators within the liberal arts and humanities intentionally link

their pedagogy and skill development awareness with students’ future careers and competencies.

Jaschik (2018) notes that graduates who major in business, education and natural sciences are

more likely to view their degree and work as closely related. 30% of humanities majors,

however, did not. Without proper guidance and an understanding of application and

transferability of their degrees and skills, humanities majors may have a difficult time finding

initial employment.

Humanities Majors Employment

Over 7 million humanities majors were in the workforce in 2019 (University of Tulsa,

2019). Graduates entering the current workforce are likely to change careers and jobs multiple

times (National Academy of Sciences, 2018). In fact, some data projects career changes up to 11

times (Pasquerella, 2019). It is for this reason that modern academia remains committed to

preparing its students for a variety of occupations. The National Academy of Sciences (2018)

notes:

Faculty and administrators, who are concerned that an education focused on a single

discipline will not best prepare graduates for the challenges and opportunities presented

by work, life, and citizenship in the 21st century, are advocating for an approach to

education that moves beyond the general education requirements found at almost all

institutions, to an approach to higher education that intentionally integrates knowledge in

the arts, humanities, physical and life sciences, social sciences, engineering, technology,

mathematics, and the biomedical disciplines. p. x)

By better integrating humanities within STEM fields, STEM students may gain the benefits of

soft skill attainment; but integration must be mutually beneficial. A hefty employment gap still

exists within these fields.

Although it is only a percentage point away from their peers in engineering and business,

humanities majors have higher unemployment rates than STEM majors, citing 4%

unemployment, and an almost 2% increase in unemployment since 2018 (Burke, 2021; National

Humanities Alliance, 2020; Ruggeri, 2019). Within the global COVID-19 Corona Virus

pandemic, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an overall unemployment rate of 8.4% for

August, 2020. Humanities majors account for a large portion of the rate, which is exceedingly

concerning, given the slow, .4% annual employment growth rate projected for the U.S. from

2019-2029 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020b). When 64% of Americans believe that

pursuing a college degree is worth pursuing so long as it does not produce large amounts of debt,

(Moran, 2019), and 87% of employers believe a college degree is valuable (AAC&U, 2021), it

remains clear that selecting an employable and well-paying degree is essential…even in a

pandemic (Strada, 2021).

Over the next nine years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects an 8% growth in

STEM jobs. Meanwhile, all non-STEM fields have a 3.4% projected growth. In addition, 6 of

the 10 fastest growing professions in the U.S. are currently related to healthcare, and the

remaining four are more closely related to science and math fields than the humanities (U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020b). The employment gaps correlate with wage earnings. In

2019, the median annual wage for STEM fields was $86,980, while non-STEM fields earned a

median wage of $38,160 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020b). Although this disparity is

daunting, the salary differences may not be as bleak as they seem. Researching the median pay

for general humanities majors (English, Philosophy, Anthropology, History) through the

Occupational Outlook Handbook (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020c) is challenging given

the broad employability and diversity of job opportunities. Therefore, the reported non-STEM

field earnings may not prove entirely accurate. Likewise, since many humanities majors can be

employed in STEM fields, the titling comparison seems misleading, especially when certain

fields pay premiums for communication and other “soft” skills taught in the humanities

(Flaherty, 2021).

Nevertheless, pay and equality within the humanities remains a problem. On average,

U.S. men who major in the humanities earn a median salary of $60,000, while females earn

$48,000 (Burke, 2021; Ruggeri, 2019); but males with terminal bachelor’s degrees in humanities,

especially those who were older, were more likely to be unemployed than females (American

Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2015). Overall, however, older graduates with humanities degrees

tend to make more in their pay (Burke, 2021). With more than 6 of every 10 humanities majors

being female, the lower reported salaries may be symptomatic of gender pay gaps rather than

degree pay gaps (Ruggeri, 2019). Furthermore, given the larger numbers of men in STEM fields,

such as Engineering with 8 out of 10 graduates being male, (Ruggeri, 2019), the combined

reported salary earnings could be more comparable than expected when gender is considered. Yet

despite the lack of directly correlated career projected growth and reported lower salaries,

humanities majors demonstrate high levels of career and degree choice satisfaction (Flaherty,

2017; Jaschik, 2018). In addition, humanities majors transition relatively quickly to high-skilled

and high-demand careers, once they are able to determine and choose a career (Emsi, 2018). As

noted above, they also frequently hold leadership positions within their work (Ruggeri, 2019).

Unfortunately, however, humanities students demonstrate challenges when taking career

development action steps and making career related choices. Research demonstrates that

humanities majors take longer than those in other degrees to select careers (Jaschik, 2018),

experience rapid wage growth later in the careers (around ages 30 and 40) versus when first

emerging from college (Emsi, 2018), and peak later in their careers of choice (Anders, 2016).

As is noted above, humanities students may be unsure of how their coursework and

gained skills can relate to future jobs. They may also overestimate their skills or their employers’

assessments of their skills (Cuseo, et al., 2020; Long, 2018), thus exhibiting poor metacognition.

Unlike their peers whose degrees manifest titles that define future careers (i.e.-nursing=nurse,

education=teacher, accounting=accountant), humanities students are often unsure which career

opportunities align with their degree. For example, a Philosophy student may be oblivious to

that fact that students with this major consistently score in the top percentiles on the Medical

College Admission Test (MCAT), Law School Admission Test (LSAT), Graduate Management

Admission Test (GMAT), and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) – often followed by

English majors (GMAT, 2011; ETS, 2012; Daily Nous, 2019). Furthermore, Philosophy majors

have the highest mid-salary ratings of non-STEM majors and demonstrate significant extra

earnings in their careers (Daily Nous, 2019). Although exposure to this information is readily

accessible, it requires students have information literacy and be aware of resources. As Social

Cognitive Career Theory confirms, the intentional sharing of resources and exposure to facts

teaches students necessary information and skills (Brown, et al., 2011). This gained knowledge

helps students relate information to their personal career goals and influences career choice and

self-efficacy (Brown et al., 2011).

Social Cognitive Career Theory

The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory

(SCCT), first posed by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994). Largely influenced by Bandura’s

(1986) Social Cognitive Theory, the basis of SCCT is to understand, explain, and predict the

ways in which individuals gain education and vocational interests, make academic and career

choices, and succeed in their academic and work goals (Brown, et al., 2011). SCCT links

educational and work performance to four psychosocial variables: general cognitive ability and

skill sets, outcome expectations, self-efficacy beliefs, and goal mechanisms (Brown, et al., 2011).

Figure 2 presents a visual representation of SCCT, related to the ways in which an individual’s

perceived skills and abilities are connected to self-efficacy, as defined by Brown, et al., 2011.

Figure 2. Visual Representation of Social Cognitive Career Theory.

According to the theory, individuals’ academic and work abilities and skills are shaped

through context of past experiences that influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations

(Brown et al., 2011). Previous experiences and contextual impacts such as access and barriers

commingle with social cognitive and behavioral elements to “facilitate or inhibit the goals that

people set for themselves and the actions they take in pursuing their goals. And they can

Performance Attainment

Performance Goals

Outcome Expectations

Self

Efficacy

Abilities/Skills

moderate the relationships of other variables” (Brown & Lent, 2019). Individuals who have

higher relatability in these areas demonstrate higher self-efficacy and performance attainment.

For example, if a student pursuing an engineering degree has corresponding measurers of

selfefficacy and expected outcomes, he/she is more likely to reach performance attainment (Lent

Brown, 2019).

Over the past 25 years, Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) have expanded upon the original

SCCT paradigm to include additional models of educational and occupational satisfaction (well-

being) and career self-management (Brown & Lent, 2019.) Figure 3 presents the Social

Cognitive Model of Work Satisfaction (Brown & Lent, 2019), which explains that academic and

work satisfaction is directly influenced by an individual’s self-efficacy, outcome expectations,

and performance goals (Brown & Lent, 2019). These additional concepts related with Social

Cognitive Model of Work Satisfaction have been confirmed in inquiry, such as Sheu, et al., 2018.

Figure 3. Visual Representation of Social Cognitive Model of Work Satisfaction.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1977, 1986) closely connects Lent et al.’s (1994)

and Betz and Luzzo’s (1996) definitions of self-efficacy and career decision making. According

to Betz and Luzzo, self-efficacy is a mediator to behavior and refers “to a person’s beliefs

concerning his or her ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior” (1996, p.

414). As is supported by the other notable researchers, an individual’s ability to perform tasks

corresponds with personal perception of value, worth, and decision making. Although

selfefficacy can be affected by internal and external forces, specific contexts can impact beliefs.

Several studies have integrated SCCT with career self-efficacy and career development, and as

recently as 2020, Wendling and Sagas conducted research at the University of Florida, which

examined college athletes’ self-management and self-efficacy using CDSE scale elements. Dos

Santos, (2018) explains that unsupportive and discouraging environments and contexts can

impact a student’s self-efficacy and self-knowledge. Likewise, Gottfredson claims that when

Performance Attainment

influencing work and life

satisfaction

Performance Goals with

activity

Outcome Expectations in

relation to work

Self

Efficacy with

Expectations

Abilities/Skills

with relevant

influlences

Personality and Emotional

Characteristics

choosing a career, jobseekers are often influenced by social expectations or perceived prestige

associated with specific occupations (Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2017).

These contexts, including visual representations, undergird this inquiry’s examination of

student self-efficacy and its relation to the career decision-making and career action steps.

SCCT’s connection to career development demonstrates the ways in which self-efficacy can

impact career decision-making, choices, and actions. The exploration of this study is the

selfefficacy career decision-making of humanities students, as indicated by CDSE-SF survey

scores and the 10-question career action survey developed within a SCCT framework.

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Career Action Steps

As Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT, Lent et al., 1994) attests, the career

development process is directly linked to self-efficacy, which correspondingly affects career

decision-making and actions toward a job. Career development is an ongoing process that

includes planning and intentional actions in order to decide upon a career and take steps to

accomplish personal work and life goals (McDonald & Hite, 2016). Within career development,

career choice is dependent upon personal preference, access to education, and personal ability

(Hill & Pisacreta, 2019). Studies have also shown that family influences and other advisors such

as teachers can impact career steps and planning (Ince Aka & Tasar, 2020). As SCCT affirms,

individuals who are unsure or anxious about making a career choice may exhibit lower

selfefficacy, or the belief in “ability to successfully perform a task or behavior” (Betz & Luzzo,

1996, p. 414).

Likewise, self-efficacy can influence whether or not an individual takes action towards

completing a task or goal (Bandura, 1992). For example, if a person has low self-efficacy, he/she

may avoid taking steps towards a career or making a career-related decision; in contrast, a person

with reported higher self-efficacy may take less time in the action of choosing their career due to

confidence in their ability to do so (Northington, 2017). It is critical therefore, to improve not

only career decision making, but self-efficacy as well, as these are directly related to individuals’

actions towards career goals.

Within Social Cognitive Theory, (SCT), Bandura (1986), maintains that self-efficacy is

affected by four types of experiences. These include: 1.) Previous accomplishments; 2.)

Vicarious learning; 3.) Social persuasion; and 4.) Physiological and affective states. Each of

these areas can positively or negatively affect self-efficacy in completing a task or action

(Schwarzer, 2014). In addition, the theory includes three sources responsible for shaping

selfefficacy. These include: 1.) Mastery experiences; 2.) Social persuasion; and 3.) Observation

of role models (Lyons & Bandura, 2019, p. 9). Perhaps the two most important in shaping

humanities students’ self-efficacy are social persuasion and observation of role models. With

negative social and governmental stimulants surrounding humanities degrees, social persuasion

negatively impacts humanities students’ self-efficacy. Likewise, if sociopolitical role models

propagate rhetoric that reflects poorly on skill and career prospects for humanities students,

selfefficacy can be reduced. Research indicates that in contrast, through positive experiences

offered by effective role modeling, students gain a sense of membership and belonging which

impacts their academic persistence and retention (Chambliss & Takacs, 2014).

SCCT augments SCT by relating self-efficacy to career decision making and action

toward a job. When choosing a career, an individual’s self-efficacy determines persistence and

whether or not he/she believes in personal ability. In fact, higher self-efficacy has been linked to

more career planning and higher motivation to pursue a career (Arghode, et al., 2021). Anafarta

(2001) asserts that career planning requires individual self-analysis (Ince Aka & Tasar, 2020);

and other studies (Harry, 2017) have shown that emotional intelligence can impact personal

beliefs such as employability (Hamzah et al., 2021). As Lyons and Bandura (2019) explain,

selfefficacy is different from self-confidence because the prior is dependent upon task-

orientation. Self-efficacy relates to perception of ability to be successful in a given task. When

completing a task or taking an action step (such as choosing a career or creating a job plan), an

individual’s self-efficacy can be altered based on perceived facility when making a choice and

performing career duties. Accordingly, Bandura (1977), and Betz and Luzzo (1996) assert that

when in the career decision-making process, individuals exhibit self-efficacy behaviors which

can impact their choices and the time in which they make their decisions.

In relation to occupational choice, Crites (1964) advocated against other approaches to

vocational education because he believed career decisions were a developmental process that one

matures throughout, rather than an opinion at a point in time. Expanding upon Super’s theory

(1955), Crites’ Career Maturity Inventory (CMI) (1964) measures individuals’ career maturity,

which shapes career choices and decisions. The Career Maturity Inventory includes five career

competencies: Self-Appraisal (an individual’s self-knowledge), Occupational information

(knowledge of jobs and resources), Goal selection (selecting a job), Planning (career planning)

and Problem solving (choosing a solution to career decision issues). Each of these CMI subtests

includes comprehension, evaluation, and solution-orientated questions. Higher scores on the

CMI correlate with higher career maturity and career development within that scale.

(Crites,1964; Crites, 1973; Lam & Santos, 2018).

Crites’ Career Maturity Theory (1964, 1973) provided a conceptual framework for the

Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE) being employed in this study. The CMI

subtests align with the CDSE subscales (Betz & Taylor, 1983), and relate to the career

development and actions associated with career decision-making. As Crites supports, career

decision-making is rooted in orientation to vocational choice, information and planning,

consistency of vocational preferences, manifestation of traits, and wisdom of vocational

preference (Crites, 1973). Career action steps, including goal selection and career planning, are

linked to career competencies and choice. Thus, in order for a student to take a career action step

and make an informed career decision, he/she must be aware of self and self needs, in order to

increase self-efficacy and build confidence when needs are met.

The Gottfredson Theory of Circumscription, Compromise, and Self-Creation expands

upon Bandura’s and Crites’s concepts of self-efficacy, in a more modern analysis of shaping

career decisions. Conducted by Linda Gottfredson (2004), the research analyzes and theorizes

the various impacts and alterations of career-aspirational compromises in childhood and

adolescence, enforced by social constraints (Gottfredson, 2004; Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2017).

Similar to Bandura’s concepts of social persuasion and self-efficacy, Gottfredson links social

persuasion to career choice. The Gottfredson theory connects the sociocultural contexts and

influences pertaining to career choice and the ways in which these are shaped and altered by

selfconceptions, beginning at young ages.

In her theory, Gottfredson argues that individuals make career decisions based upon

“perceived gender appropriateness, prestige, and the degree to which the occupation will fulfill

their preferences and personality needs,” respectively (Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2017, p. 50).

Gottfredson explains that when choosing a career, job-seekers often settle with a job that is

“good enough” instead of “great” and are influenced by social expectations or perceived prestige

associated with specific occupations (Gottfredson, 2004; Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2017, p. 50).

Thus, a student who might have been better suited for or preferred a humanities degree may have

been persuaded to settle for another job with higher perceived prestige or occupation.

Furthermore, the theorist explains that circumscription is the process by which children or

adolescents go about selecting a career and minimize and define their options. According to

Gottfredson, the process of circumscription includes: 1.) An ability to move to abstract cognitive

processing; 2.) An ability to link self-concept to occupational preferences and options; 3.) An

ability to analyze social and individual distinctions such as sex roles; 4.) An ability to limit and

eliminate certain occupation options; and 5.) The ability to gradually define and redefine the

preferences, expectations, and process (Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2017). Although the process

of circumscription begins in the cognitive processing and growth development of children and

adolescents, its theory still applies to adult students undergoing career decision making. While

amidst the compromising phase in the career development process, individuals (beginning with

children and adolescents) undergo a shift in self-awareness. During this phase, personal

preferences become overlooked, altered, or neglected due to social awareness and implications.

Gottfredson’s theory once again connects social implications to self-efficacy and career

action and decision making of humanities students. Gottfredson (2004) notes, “Moreover, the

occupation one holds is increasingly seen as the measure of who one is in society” (p. 2).

Demographic influences such as parental, cultural, environmental, behavioral, or social stimuli,

can impact career actions and choices. As Chuang et al., (2009) notes, “personal inputs (e.g.,

gender, race, and personality), contextual factors (e.g., social/academic status, culture, and

family), and learning experiences (e.g., work experiences) influence career behaviors in

important ways” (p. 19). Pivotal then within job selection, is an individual’s self-awareness and

understanding of what the job requirements are, what qualifications it entails, and the daily

interactions associated with the position. Career action steps can help in knowledge acquisition

of these vocational components and possibly influence career decision-making self-efficacy.

Demographic influence of Self-Efficacy

Many career development studies and theories supported by psychological research have

examined the impacts of demographic factors on self-efficacy and career decision making. In

addition to Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1977), Lent, et al.‘s Social Cognitive Career Theory

(1994), Gottfredson’s (2004) Theory of Conscription and Compromise, Super’s (1957) Theory of

Vocational Development, and Savicka’s (2019) Career Construction Theory, among others,

support sociocultural and demographic influence in vocational choices (Super, 1957; Brown &

Lent, 2005; Savicka, 2019). As supported in Brown and Lent (2005), various inquiries have

noted racial and gender differences amongst individuals’ career decisions. Likewise, variations

are prevalent within other demographic and population characteristics such as first-generation

student status (Pulliam et al., 2017; Raque-Bogdan & Lucas, 2016), and socioeconomic status

(Johnson & Muse, 2015). Within this study, career decision-making self-efficacy is being

explored across 6 demographic areas: age, gender, major, race/ethnicity, college first-generation

status, and year.

Gender and Age

Gender and age are often researched in context with one another. As SCCT affirms, these

variables may influence each other and career perceptions (Chuang et al., 2009). For example,

Peterson (1993) demonstrated age correlation with career decision-making self-efficacy (Betz &

Taylor, 2012). According to the study, those with higher ages reported higher selfefficacy (Betz

& Taylor, 2012). In alignment with Gottfredson’s Theory, age can influence career decisions as

early as adolescence, and research shows that elementary-aged boys and girls think differently

about science careers (Rodrigues et al., 2011).

Within higher education, Johnson and Muse (2015) found that in comparison to males,

female students were more likely to select majors in fields such as Education, Social Sciences,

Health Sciences, Psychology, English, Language, Music, Theater, Communication, Art,

Biosystems. Males were more likely to select majors such as Business, Engineering, Computer

Science, Economics, Architecture (Johnson & Muse, 2015). Relatedly, Stewart et al., (2020)

found that while enrolled in science/math courses, female students reported lower self-efficacy

than male students (Stewart et al., 2020). Given the data, gender may impact both major choice

and self-efficacy. Interestingly, however, Stewart et al., (2020) also found that both male and

female students in STEM classes reported high self-efficacy towards their intended profession.

Thus, science/math students may report low self-efficacy in their academic performance, but

high self-efficacy in their career goals. The present study’s investigation of career

decisionmaking self-efficacy of humanities students provides additional insight in gender and

major differences amongst students within majors outside of STEM, with degrees without direct

career title correlation.

Major and Year

Similar to Stewart et al.’s (2020) data, research using national-level data from Leppel

(2001), suggests that students in majors more directly associated with careers, especially

business degrees, may be more committed to their career goals and more likely to persist in their

studies. This study’s intentional exploration of majors not directly associated with career titles

contributed to further investigation of the association between self-efficacy and career

commitment through action steps.

In a similar way, Ludwikowski (2019) explored humanities students’ self-efficacy related

to personality skills in relation to majors and found that humanities students reported higher

social self-efficacy than biological sciences/medicine majors. Ludwikowski’s (2019) inquiry may

suggest that humanities students’ skills and personalities can shape their career preference.

Likewise, Johnson and Muse (2015) claim that a student’s high school academic performance

and curriculum is associated with choice of major. Students who had high math self-efficacy in

high school and introductory postsecondary science laboratory courses were more likely to select

a STEM college major (C. Evans et al., 2020). Writing apprehension due to perceived lack of

writing ability can also affect major and career selection (Mascle, 2013). Thus, first-year

students who select STEM degrees may do so based on self-efficacy developed from high school

academic performance. Likewise, a students’ self-efficacy can be impacted by their college

performance and change as they progress in their higher education and studies; therefore, a

freshman student may report different self-efficacy than a senior, who has presumably taken

more college-level classes. This inquiry expands on the research surrounding these variables by

investigating specific majors and variances across academic years within the field of humanities.

Race/Ethnicity and College Generation Status

Research demonstrates that race and ethnicity can impact self-efficacy. For example,

Gushue and Whitson (2006) found that African American students with parental and teacher

support had higher career decision-making self-efficacy (Ince Aka & Tasar, 2020). In addition,

Peterson (1993) and Chaney et al., (2007) found that African American students reported higher

career decision-making self-efficacy than Caucasian students and those of other races and

ethnicities (Betz & Taylor, 2012). Foud, Smith, and Enochs (1997) found that urban minority

students had higher self-efficacy than suburban minority students in their study (Betz & Taylor,

2012). Some studies have also shown differences in certain ethnicities’ perceptions of careers in

science fields and liberal arts (Rodrigues et al., 2011; Nicholas, 2018), and understandings of

how career goals can be accomplished (HERI, 2019). Nicholas (2018) claims that international

students may not experience the same public perceptions and stigmas surrounding the

employability of liberal arts degrees, which could thereby influence their major choice and

opinions of these degrees. As SCCT supports, students’ self-efficacy is often linked to their

background and personal experiences (Lent et al., 1994). For example, Peterson (1993) found

that students’ self-efficacy was higher when paternal and maternal levels of education were

higher. Similarly, research conducted by R. Evans et al., (2020) found that first-generation

students reported high levels of self-efficacy attributed to positive attitudes of independence,

self-motivation, and determination, despite being the first in their families to be pursuing higher

education (as defined by R. Evans et al., 2020). These traits may be learned skills within the

population, as first-generation students may not have as much knowledge of, or access to

resources to help their academic performance as their peers (Chang et al., 2019; R. Evans et al.,

2020); Therefore, first-generation students may need specific college transition programs and

career activities to grow and improve career self-efficacy (Kezar et al., 2020). As Chuang,

(2009) asserts, faculty and field experts play a large role in developing students’ career goals and

expectations, and “differences in the academic areas and related professions impact students’

career decision self-efficacy, career outcome expectations, and vocational exploration and

commitment” (Chuang, 2009, p. 26).

Within the field of humanities and liberal arts, there have been examinations of concepts

of employability related to demographic characteristics. For example, Nicholas (2018)

qualitatively found that minority liberal arts students (including Psychology majors within the

study) did not express expectations of workforce marginalization, except in the case of

international students. Mullen (2014) qualitatively examined college major choice amongst

liberal arts students with results that indicated gendered occupational structure or gender-type

concepts that likely influenced major choice. Mullen’s research (2014) also garnered results that

indicated culturally significant differences within liberal arts major choice.

As supported above, gender and demographic disparities evince influence in career and

major/degree selection. As Beutel et al., explain, “In particular, we find men’s adherence to the

masculine norm of emotional control is associated negatively with selecting majors from such

academic fields as clinical and health sciences or arts and humanities compared to science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and doctoral-track medicine (e.g.,

premedicine and pre-dentistry)” (2019, p. 374). Given Beutal et al.’s (2019) comments, fields

associated with humanities majors may already be perceived as gendered feminine and impact

students’ career choice. Relatedly, research shows that females are less likely to pursue STEM

fields than males (C. Evans et al., 2020), which corresponds with a higher number of females in

humanities degrees (Ruggieri, 2019).

The scope of the present study expands upon Buetel et al’s., claims surrounding the

gendering of the humanities by quantitatively examining how sociocultural demographics, such

as gender, are presented in the career decision making self-efficacy of a specific population of

humanities students. Limited (if any) research is related to how the major choice of humanities

students influences their career decision-making self-efficacy. However, with inquiry evidence

that gender and demographic differences exist within career choices of other populations, and

within different majors in the humanities population overall, the results of this study add to field

research rooted in examining career decision-making self-efficacy.

Self-Efficacy and the Humanities

Research demonstrates that career decision-making is affected by self-efficacy and can be

rational, intuitive, or dependent (Galles, et al., 2019). Dependent self-efficacy can be shaped by

external forces that contribute to attitudes and beliefs surrounding careers and associated

perceptions (Galles, et al., 2019). Likewise, Social Cognitive Career Theory supports that role

models, advisors, and even “inspirational talk from leaders in the field” can influence students’

decision-making (Chuang, et al., 2009, p. 23). In today’s U.S. academic and economic

environment, students are often exposed to negative rhetoric and perceptions surrounding the

humanities. As Jaschik (2014) reports, both republican and democratic politicians devalue

humanities degrees. Figure 4 provides a charted summary of some politicians’ comments.

Politician

Degree

Comment

Barack Obama,

Former U.S.

President,

Democrat

Art History

“I promise you, folks can make a lot more, potentially, with

skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an

art history degree." (Jaschik, 2014)

Mitt Romney,

U.S. Senator,

Republican

English

"I wonder whether you get information coming into college

that says you know, this course of study will lead to this kind

of jobs and there’s a lot of opening here as opposed to – as

you said, English – and as an English major I can say this....

as an English major your options are uh, you better go to

graduate school, all right? And find a job from there.”

(Jaschik, 2014)

Rick Scott, U.S.

Senator,

Republican

Anthropology

"If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into

education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs.

So, I want that money to go to degrees where people can get

jobs in this state. Is it a vital interest of the state to have more

anthropologists? I don’t think so." (Jaschik, 2014)

Figure 4. Summary of Politicians’ Negative Comments Regarding the Humanities

Politician

Degree

Comment

Patrick McCrory,

Former Governor

of North Carolina,

Republican

Gender

studies

"If you want to take gender studies that's fine, go to a private

school and take it. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's

not going to get someone a job." (Jaschik, 2014)

John Kasich,

Former Governor

of Ohio,

Republican

Philosophy

“Philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

(Chideya, 2015)

Marco Rubio

U.S. Senator,

Republican

Philosophy

“Welders make more than philosophers. We need more

welders and less philosophers.” (Chideya, 2015)

Figure 4 (Continued). Summary of Politicians’ Negative Comments Regarding the Humanities

Like many other politicians and scientists, these politicians’ sentiments echo disapproval

of humanities degrees, overlooking the fact that liberal arts pedagogy laid the foundation for

contemporary education. As the Ohio Humanities Council (2020) notes, “As fields of study, the

humanities emphasize analysis and exchange of ideas rather than the creative expression of the

arts or the quantitative explanation of the sciences” (para. 5). These traits of the field readily

contribute to the workforce – including areas such as politics. Although politicians’ remarks may

not largely impact individual students’ degree decisions, their rhetoric can shape the funding and

support within higher education and the economy. The public opinions shed light on the

surrounding debate associated with employability of majors. Humanities students pursuing

degrees in a public campus atmosphere focused only on perceived major utility may feel

defenseless when asked the common question, “What are you going to do with that degree?”

What remains essential then to humanities students’ self-efficacy and career

decisionmaking action steps is an understanding of how the information and skills learned in

their degree transfers to their future careers. This pivotal part of career development allows

students to connect their major with employment and begin to take steps to strengthen their

ability to gain employment. Guidance from peers, educators, and employers should help to

reinforce the application and diverse value of humanities degree choice. As the National

Academy of

Sciences (2018) notes, there is a “growing concern that an approach to higher education that

favors disciplinary segregation is poorly suited to the challenges and opportunities of our time”

(p. 16). Just as the humanities and workforce need not be exclusive, the value of the humanities

and STEM need not be limited to one or the other. This false dichotomy can dictate and direct

students’ self-efficacy and career actions and decisions.

Summary

Demographics, sociopolitical and cultural influences, and modern academic trends

continue to shape the humanities and liberal arts. These elements relatedly impact students

within these fields. As former Education Secretary William Bennett claimed, liberal arts

education has become “so debased, narrowed, professionalized and hermeneuticized” that the

value of the education has drastically diminished (Hearn, Belasco, 2015, p. 388). Yet, the

professionalization and “hermeneuticization” of the humanities and liberal arts need not be

negative. Research demonstrates that students with humanities degrees are happily employed

and expand the labor force with necessary skills that positively shape the workforce and

economy (Anders, 2017; Jaschik, 2018; Rose, 2015; Strada Institute for the Future of Work &

Emsi, 2018). Nevertheless, shifts in opinions and perceptions surrounding humanities pedagogy

and employability can alter self-efficacy and delay career actions and decisions (Bandura, 1977;

Lent et al., 1994, Gottfredson, 2004). Thus, this study explored career decision-making

selfefficacy as a means of further examining relationships and influences related to humanities

students career actions and preparation.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and support a

form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make people of all

backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants. –

U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships amongst career decisionmaking

self-efficacy and career action step survey scores within different humanities majors and different

student demographics at a four-year, public university, in order to better inform the career

development and preparation of students within these fields. Using a correlational research

design, the study explored the career decision-making self-efficacy and career action steps of

undergraduate humanities students in majors that do not have corresponding career titles – i.e., -

English, Philosophy, Anthropology, and History, at a four-year university in Southwest Florida.

The study employed the CDSE-SF (Betz & Taylor, 1983) instrument and a 10-question career

action steps survey, to explore the following research questions: