His archway model (so called because it was modelled on the doorway of Super’s favourite
Cambridge college) formally conceded the importance of contextual influences (e.g. social
policy, employment practices, peer group, family, community, the economy) which operated
on individual choice and attributed them equal importance to individual factors (e.g. values,
needs, interests, intelligence, aptitudes). Super also acknowledged the contributions from a
range of academic disciplines to our understanding of vocational choice (Super, 1990).
4. Criticisms
Brown (1990) notes the phenomenological, developmental and differential influences on
the expansion and refinement of Super’s thinking, suggesting that it was because of these
disparate influences that Super failed to integrate strands into a cohesive statement (Brown,
1990, p.355). Indeed, Super acknowledged that a weakness of his theory was its fragment-
ed nature, anticipating its future development:
What I have contributed is not an integrated, comprehensive and testable theory, but rather
a ‘segmental theory’. A loosely unified set of theories dealing with specific aspects of career
development, taken from developmental, differential, social, personality and phenomeno-
logical psychology and held together by self-concept and learning theory. Each of these
segments provides testable hypotheses, and in due course I expect the tested and refined
segments to yield an integrated theory. (Super, 1990, p.199)
This fragmentation was identified as the most serious criticism of the theory (Super et al.,
1996) in a chapter published after Super’s death in 1994: ‘Its propositions are really a series
of summarizing statements that, although closely related to data, lack a fixed logical form
that could make new contributions of their own’ (Super et al., 1996, p.143).
● Osipow and Fitzgerald (1996) consider the original version of the theory was too
general to be of much practical use, with its conceptual value being limited by
its sweeping style - though this weakness had been addressed by subsequent
refinements (p.143). They argue that a particular weakness is the failure of the
theory to integrate economic and social factors that influence career decisions
(p.144).
● This concern is echoed by Scharf (1997) and Brown (1990), who propose that
Super’s theory does not adequately address the particular challenges that
women and ethnic groups present career theory (Brown, 1990, p.355; Scharf,
1997, p.153).
● Brown (1990) also specifically criticises the theory for its failure to account
adequately for the career development of persons from lower socio-economic
groups (Brown, 1990, p.355).