I found the distinctions you drew between types of career advice research interestingâI hadnât really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. Iâve 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 âgenericâ) career choice research: âWhich career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?â
Generic career success research: âWhat 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.?â
Individual-level career choice research: âHow can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?â
Career advice intervention research: âWhat can we do to help more people find impactful careers?â
Currently your âindividual-level researchâ category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really thatâs something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say âor maybe five-partâ because one could also add âIndividual-level career success researchâ. But Iâm guessing that that wouldnât add much.
For some reason, Iâm just seeing this now. I agree, thatâs a good distinction between 2â3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success âWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?â
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path /â 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 interestingâI hadnât really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. Iâve 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 âgenericâ) career choice research: âWhich career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?â
Generic career success research: âWhat 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.?â
(Along the lines of https://ââ80000hours.org/ââcareer-guide/ââhow-to-be-successful/ââ )
Individual-level career choice research: âHow can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?â
Career advice intervention research: âWhat can we do to help more people find impactful careers?â
Currently your âindividual-level researchâ category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really thatâs something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say âor maybe five-partâ because one could also add âIndividual-level career success researchâ. But Iâm guessing that that wouldnât add much.
For some reason, Iâm just seeing this now. I agree, thatâs a good distinction between 2â3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success âWhat can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?â
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path /â 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.