Introduction to a good idea: Chaos theory of careers

Abstract

The chaos theory of career (CTC) has a very special relationship with the Australian Journal of Career Development. In 2003, Pryor and Bright published the theory for the first time in the Australian Journal of Career Development (Pryor & Bright, 2003a) and the Australian Journal of Psychology (Pryor & Bright, 2003b). One decade has passed; the CTC is flourishing, and, now, in 2014, this special issue of the journal is a celebration of the theory’s status, and also acknowledges the outstanding achievements of the CTC’s chief theorists: Professors Robert Pryor and Jim Bright. A good idea is one that can be translated from its abstract tenets into testable hypotheses and workable practices. Researchers want to discern real empirical effects and practitioners want to generate real outcomes for their clients and students. Indeed, Pryor and Bright have brought a good idea to the field of career development. They have promulgated the CTC, articulated its core tenets, and demonstrated its pragmatic value. This achievement is evident in their book, The Chaos Theory of Careers: A New Perspective on Working in the Twenty-First Century (Pryor & Bright, 2011). Some say that politics is the contest of ideas. The same can be said of the social sciences. In the turbulent mix of science and practice, good ideas come and go. If a good idea’s hypotheses fail the test of evidence, and if it does not work in practice, then its fate is an inexorable decline into the Underworld for good ideas, thence to wait for some intellectual Orpheus to bring it back into the world of ideas—never looking back, but looking forward to a new future, once again in the great contest of ideas. This is not the fate of the CTC. The CTC is very much alive and well as a theory, and, accordingly, this special issue of the journal attests its currency and capacity to generate other new ideas, perspectives, and practices. However, there is no time for complacency. Although the CTC has accreted a substantive literature in its favour, adherents of the CTC must continue testing its pragmatic truth-value, empirically and practically. I entreat you to read the papers in this issue with especial intent and focus. Repay a debt of gratitude to Pryor and Bright by using their CTC to generate hypotheses, design studies to test their veracity, and formulate new forms of practice. As you do so, our field, career development, will be all the richer for your engagement with, what is, a good idea.