Theory of occupational allocation (opportunity structure)
Apart from a privileged minority of the population individuals are (more or less) constrained
in their choice of occupations by social variables that are outside their control e.g. gender,
ethnicity and social class.Like many other theorists, Roberts has developed and modified his views over a long period
of time.
The ‘opportunity structure’ model was first proposed by Roberts (1968, p176) as an alterna-
tive to theories of career development advanced by Ginzberg and Super. On the basis of a
survey involving 196 young men aged between 14 and 23 selected by a random canvas of
households in a part of London, Roberts (1968) suggested that the:
‘momentum and direction of school leavers’ careers are derived from the way in which their
job opportunities become cumulatively structured and young people are placed in varying
degrees of social proximity, with different ease of access to different types of employment’
(p179)
Roberts (1968) did not suggest that his alternative theory is one of universal validity (p179).
Rather, he argued that entry to employment in different social contexts requires different
explanatory frameworks and that entry into employment does not take place in a similar
manner amongst all groups of young people, even in the same society. The determinants of
occupational choice identified are:
● the home;
● the environment;
● the school;
● peer groups;
● job opportunities.He challenged the relevance of the concept of choice embedded in psychological theories,
emphasising the structure of constraints:
‘An adequate theory for understanding school-leavers’ transition to employment
in Britain needs to be based around the concept not of occupational choice’, but ofopportunity structure’ (Roberts, 1977, p183)
As a consequence, the scope of careers guidance was somewhat restricted, since it could
not make jobs more rewarding for individuals nor create opportunities for personal growth
and development. Roberts’ contribution to careers theory carried with it particular signifi-
cance because he spelt out the implications for careers guidance practice (1977). These