I found the distinctions you drew between types of career advice research interesting—I hadn’t really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. I’ve 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 “generic”) career choice research: “Which career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?”
Generic career success research: “What 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.?”
Individual-level career choice research: “How can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?”
Career advice intervention research: “What can we do to help more people find impactful careers?”
Currently your “individual-level research” category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really that’s something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say “or maybe five-part” because one could also add “Individual-level career success research”. But I’m guessing that that wouldn’t add much.
For some reason, I’m just seeing this now. I agree, that’s a good distinction between 2⁄3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success “What can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?”
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path / 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 interesting—I hadn’t really thought of those distinctions before and expect to find that useful in future. I’ve 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 “generic”) career choice research: “Which career paths are especially impactful, overall, for people to join?”
Generic career success research: “What 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.?”
(Along the lines of https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-to-be-successful/ )
Individual-level career choice research: “How can a given person find an impactful career that is a good fit for them?”
Career advice intervention research: “What can we do to help more people find impactful careers?”
Currently your “individual-level research” category kind-of implies that it includes a bit of work on what would make someone successful, but really that’s something fairly different and something that can be researched in a more generalised way.
I say “or maybe five-part” because one could also add “Individual-level career success research”. But I’m guessing that that wouldn’t add much.
For some reason, I’m just seeing this now. I agree, that’s a good distinction between 2⁄3. Building on this:
New way to organize 2:
Career success “What can a person do to maximise their chance of being personally and professionally successful in their careers?”
Generic career success (your 2)
Career path / 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.