I found the distinctions you drew between types of career advice research interestingāI hadnāt really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. Iāve also suggested that that section be drawn on for the new EA Wiki entry on career advising.
That said, I think it should really be a four-part (or maybe five-part) distinction, with the parts being:
Movement-level (or āgenericā) career choice research: āWhich career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?ā
Generic career success research: āWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of getting into the jobs they want, doing well in them, remaining productive and happy, not burning out, etc.?ā
Individual-level career choice research: āHow can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?ā
Career advice intervention research: āWhat can we do to help more people find impactful careers?ā
Currently your āindividual-level researchā category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really thatās something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say āor maybe five-partā because one could also add āIndividual-level career success researchā. But Iām guessing that that wouldnāt add much.
For some reason, Iām just seeing this now. I agree, thatās a good distinction between 2ā3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success āWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?ā
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path /ā profession success (e.g. how to succeed in policy, job profiles)
Open to suggestions on ways to phrase 2, but it seems increasingly important in the past few years to give people concrete advice on how to succeed within a specific career path or profession.
I found the distinctions you drew between types of career advice research interestingāI hadnāt really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. Iāve also suggested that that section be drawn on for the new EA Wiki entry on career advising.
That said, I think it should really be a four-part (or maybe five-part) distinction, with the parts being:
Movement-level (or āgenericā) career choice research: āWhich career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?ā
Generic career success research: āWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of getting into the jobs they want, doing well in them, remaining productive and happy, not burning out, etc.?ā
(Along the lines of https://āā80000hours.org/āācareer-guide/āāhow-to-be-successful/āā )
Individual-level career choice research: āHow can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?ā
Career advice intervention research: āWhat can we do to help more people find impactful careers?ā
Currently your āindividual-level researchā category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really thatās something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say āor maybe five-partā because one could also add āIndividual-level career success researchā. But Iām guessing that that wouldnāt add much.
For some reason, Iām just seeing this now. I agree, thatās a good distinction between 2ā3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success āWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?ā
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path /ā profession success (e.g. how to succeed in policy, job profiles)
Open to suggestions on ways to phrase 2, but it seems increasingly important in the past few years to give people concrete advice on how to succeed within a specific career path or profession.