Article

Journal of Career Development

2019, Vol. 46(2) 94-111
ª Curators of the University
A Qualitative Analysis of of Missouri 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Career Choice Pathways of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0894845317725603

College-Oriented Rural Central journals.sagepub.com/home/jcd

Appalachian High School Students

Cheryl Carrico1, Holly M. Matusovich1, and Marie C. Paretti1

Abstract
To explore the ways context may shape career choices, we used a qualitative approach to analyze
interviews with college-oriented high school students from the rural Central Appalachia region of
Virginia. Using social cognitive career theory, we analyzed pathways to career choices and relevant
contextual factors, using data from 24 interviews. Results revealed that participants’ pathways partially
matched the model, though we also found variant pathways triggered by significant environmental
influences and incomplete pathways due to variations in possible career plans. Explanatory factors
included status as prospective first-generation college student, outcome expectations that included
remaining local and having job stability, and an emergent factor of continuing generation Appalachian.
The patterns that emerged with respect to contextual factors and career choice pathways highlight the
importance of culture and context when examining how students make career choices. This research
extends prior research by examining career pathways using student’s own words as data. Moreover,
the patterns offer insights career coaches, counselors, and educators can use in supporting students’
post–high school career planning.

Keywords
high school students, career decision-making, Appalachia, social cognitive career theory, qualitative
methods

While there is considerable research on career choices in K–12 students (e.g., Betz, 2007; Brown
et al., 2003; Fletcher, 2012; Fouad & Byars, 2005; Gordon, 1998; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges,
& Hayek, 2006; Wahl & Blackhurst, 2000), resulting models, frameworks, and recommendations
are often developed considering students from majority groups or high-enrollment areas such as
low-income urban schools and omitting rural populations. Studies in rural regions are often more
challenging because low enrollment limits quantitative modeling, and schools may be less accessible

1
Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Cheryl Carrico, Department of Engineering Education (MC 0218), Virginia Tech, 354 Goodwin Hall, 635 Price’s Fork Road,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Carrico et al. 95

because of their locations. At the same time, neither generalized models nor research on other
low-attainment groups (e.g., urban minority youth) are necessarily transferrable to rural contexts
(Irvin, Byun, Meece, Farmer, & Hutchins, 2012) because of differences including geography, ethnic
demographics, and cultural dynamics. Given the range of personal and cultural factors that affect
students’ career choices, it is critical to study choice in context (Coladarci, 2007; Lent & Brown,
2006; Petrin, Schafft, & Meece, 2014).
Given this need, we use qualitative methods to explore career choice in one particular rural context: the
Central Appalachia region of the United States. Based on graduation rates, Appalachians are underrepre-
sented in higher education in general and specifically in engineering and other high-paying, in-demand
fields. Though definitions of underrepresentation often refer to minority classifications of ethnicity, race,
and gender, Appalachia as a cultural group is underrepresented with respect to educational attainment, job
opportunities, and economic wealth though not race. As data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Appa-
lachian Regional Commission [ARC] demonstrate, Central Appalachia lags behind not only the United
States as a whole but also most other portions of Appalachia with respect to educational attainment,
employment, and economic wealth. Perhaps most notably, the college completion rates from 2009 to
2013 across the Central Appalachia subregion are the lowest in Appalachia, with county rates ranging from
5.6% to 13.6%, well below the U.S. average (28.8%) and Appalachian region average (21.6%) (Appala-
chian Regional Commission, 2015; U.S. Census, 2010). Even within a defined region such as Central
Appalachia, variations such as state education policies, proximity to urban centers, and economies can
influence career pathways. Despite such differences, little research has focused on career choice in rural
Appalachia. The work that is available highlights the importance of local context with respect to typical
Appalachian attitudes toward family, community, and work (Ali & Saunders, 2009; Irvin et al., 2012; Pet-
rin et al., 2014; Tang & Russ, 2007). Developing a more contextualized understanding of career choice, we
argue, can improve schools’ abilities to help rural Appalachian students make informed decisions about
career goals and potentially improve regional educational and economic attainment.
To explore the role of context in career choice pathways, we frame our study using Lent, Brown, and
Hackett’s social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (1994, 2000) and focus on a single state—Virginia.
Because this study is part of a larger project exploring engineering as a potential career choice among
Appalachian youth, our study is further limited to primarily self-identified college-oriented high school
students. Using an exploratory qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2009), we addressed two research
questions: (1) What are the postsecondary career choice pathways for college-oriented Central Appala-
chian high school students in Virginia? (2) What are the salient factors influencing these pathways?

Background
SCCT was developed to explain the processes by which individuals form interests, choose career
choice goals and actions, and attain varying degrees of achievement in occupational and academic
pursuits (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000). SCCT encompasses a range of factors influencing
career behavior, along with what Lent et al. (1994) refer to as “common, central pathways through
which these diverse factors affect career behavior” (p. 81). SCCT posits that students base career
choice goals on having (a) the necessary skills and knowledge, (b) expectations about rewards, (c)
a commitment to do the relevant work, and (d) a supportive climate. Numerous studies have demon-
strated the validity of SCCT’s constructs and relationships (e.g., Ali & Saunders, 2006; Lent, Sheu,
et al., 2008), and SCCT has been used extensively to understand career choice goals in studies of
K–12 students (e.g., Garriott, Raque-Bogdan, Zoma, Mackie-Hernandez, & Lavin, 2016; Gibbons
& Borders, 2010), students in underrepresented groups (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Gibbons & Borders,
2010; Kim & Seo, 2014; Lent et al., 2005; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999), and, in a few cases, rural
Appalachian students (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Ali & Saunders, 2006, 2009; Bennett, 2008; Tang
& Russ, 2007). The prior empirical research with Appalachian students relies on quantitative measures
96 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Figure 1. SCCT model (Lent, Brown, & Hackett (1994, 2000)).

based on using variables identified in the SCCT model to predict career pathways at a broad level. For
example, vocational school versus 4-year college versus direct to the workforce (Ali & McWhirter,
2006) and factors influencing expectations to attend college (Ali & Saunders, 2006). The model’s
social constructs, particularly environmental influences and outcome expectations, make it well suited
to studying the role of context. SCCT (Figure 1) thus provides both a framework for exploring career
choice pathways and a means to compare our findings to existing literature.
Environmental influences can be proximal or distal to career choice decision-making. Proximal
influences involve supports and barriers such as career contacts and money for college, while distal
influences involve items such as family background and economic status. Both types can be objective
(e.g., financial) or subjective (e.g., perceived family attitudes) and are affected by an individual’s inter-
pretation (Lent et al., 2000). In rural Appalachia, strong family bonds form a primary environmental
influence. These bonds are evident in the ways relatives (often several generations) live close to one
another, the prominence of family members as role models, and the reliance on family and community
for support (Azano, 2011). Low postsecondary degree attainment among family role models may limit
students’ career aspirations (Ali & Saunders, 2009). Similarly, family and community loyalty may
restrict how far students are willing to travel for college and may result in a preference for local
educational and career options (Petrin et al., 2014). This loyalty, coupled with real or perceived
availability of local jobs, may influence students toward or away from a given choice goal (Ali &
McWhirter, 2006; Bennett, 2008; Sarnoff, 2003; Tang & Russ, 2007). The importance of environmen-
tal influences in rural Appalachia is consistent with broader research on underrepresented groups, sug-
gesting that cultural ties may play the most important role in career decision-making—even more
important than interest (e.g., Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Tang et al., 1999).
Learning experiences include performance accomplishments in subjects (e.g., mastery experiences,
successful or not), verbal encouragement (or discouragement), and vicarious learning (e.g., watching
role models succeed or fail; Lent & Brown, 2006). Within rural Appalachia, career-related learning
experiences can be limited by school population size, distance, transportation difficulties, and quantity
and variety of resources. Rural schools often have limited advanced course offerings (e.g., physics or
calculus) due to their size; though online learning is becoming increasingly available, limitations in
connectivity and scheduling remain potential barriers (Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). In addition,
research suggests in-person learning experiences have a stronger resonance with high school students
in rural Appalachia (Boynton, 2014). Likewise, lower population densities and rural road structures
require greater travel times for both students who want to participate in group activities and profession-
als who want to provide learning experiences such as career days or in-class demonstrations. Similarly,
workplace visits are limited by the types of employment available and the lack of white-collar jobs
Carrico et al. 97

(Seufert & Carrozza, 2004), which again may limit career choices (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Bennett,
2008; Sarnoff, 2003; Tang & Russ, 2007).
Outcome expectations represent individuals’ beliefs about the consequences of their actions
(Bandura, 1989) and can be social (e.g., family benefits), material (e.g., attractive salary), or functional
(e.g., doing enjoyable work; Lent & Brown, 2006; Lent et al., 2005). They are shaped by environmen-
tal influences and learning experiences. Thus, rural Appalachian students who often perceive family
members as role models may set outcome expectations accordingly; a student may choose to remain
close to home and go to work directly after high school if that is a family pattern (Ali & McWhirter,
2006; Wallace & Diekroger, 2000), even when alternate careers would provide other desired outcomes
(e.g., money or respect). Conversely, students with strong job-related outcome expectations may more
readily leave the region in the short term when local opportunities do not meet those expectations
(Petrin et al., 2014). However, as Petrin et al. (2014) note, such students may often have long-term
aspirations to return home.
Interests refer to people’s likes, dislikes, or indifferences about career-related activities. For exam-
ple, interest in a career may be based on interest in school subjects, hobbies, or perceived career-related
prestige. Although SCCT posits interest as the direct precursor to choice goals, research results are
mixed. Some studies support its prominence (Fouad & Smith, 1996; Jacobs, Finken, Griffin, & Wright,
1998; Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Sheu, et al., 2008). However, these and similar studies involved research
based on “European American cultural values and thus failed to adequately address the intricacies of
diverse populations,” as Kim and Seo (2014, p. 529) note. At the same time, research on underrepre-
sented groups broadly in the United States suggests that factors such as degree of acculturation and
nontraditional career choices (Garriott et al., 2016; Tang et al., 1999) may inhibit career goal formation
via interest, while Jacobs et al. (1998) found parental support and access to science activities critical to
girls’ interest in science careers. There is less data specific to Appalachians with regard to interest and
how it interacts with other factors to influence career choices making the role of interest important to
understand.
Career choice goals (referred hereafter as career choices) are the intentions, plans, or aspirations to
engage in an activity or obtain an outcome; they are stated in terms of what one will do (Bandura, 1986;
Lent et al., 1994). In this study, we focus on the content of career choices (i.e., type of activity) asso-
ciated with the intention to pursue a career. Moreover, following Ali and McWhirter’s (2006) work for
rural Appalachian students’ postsecondary plans, we include goals associated with a job, career, or
vocation.

Method
Given the limited research on the role of context in career choice in rural Appalachia and our goal of
understanding influential factors, we conducted a qualitative exploratory case study using interviews
as the primary data source (Creswell, 2009; Yin, 2009). The case study approach was particularly well
suited for our research because it enabled us to focus deeply on a single context to explore how stu-
dents develop their career choices in a contemporary, nonexperimental setting (Yin, 2009); within this
context, we relied on multiple student interviews to effectively capture variation and develop a rich
“understanding the lived experiences of other people and the meaning they make of the experience”
(Seidman, 2006, p. 9).

Case Site
Because the case study is exploratory, we bounded the case to support deep exploration of a single
area. We focused on Central Appalachia (as defined by the ARC) because it has the greatest disparity
with national averages in education, poverty, median income, and population density. We narrowed
98 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Table 1. High School Characteristics for Participating Schools in the Data Collection Year.

Number of Participants Membership County County Free and Reduced

School (24 Total)a Per Gradeb Seat Designation Lunchb (%)

1SA 1 70–80 Yes Distressed 45.65

1SB 5 55–75 No Distressed 55.56
2LA 5 130–150 Yes At risk 43.74
3SA 5 50–70 No Transitional 48.70
4SA 1 70–90 No Transitional 51.22
4MA 7 100–120 No Transitional 41.71

Note. School identifier: #1–4 ¼ county; S, M, or L ¼ school population size (small, medium, or large based on study region school
populations); A or B individual school.
a
Additional three participants with undecided career plans not included here. bData from www.doe.virginia.gov/
statistics_reports

the case to a single state, Virginia, to minimize variations in state educational systems such as graduate
credit requirements, types of diplomas, and testing (Corrente, 2013) that can impact career choice
pathways. The Central Appalachian region of Virginia (CAV) typifies Appalachia in terms of rurality,
mountains, and blue-collar/company towns. We further narrowed the site to the seven southwestern-
most counties in Virginia which represent the three lowest (of five) socioeconomic classifications
based on unemployment, per capita income, and poverty: distressed, at risk, and transitional. No coun-
ties in or adjoining the CAV were ranked as competitive or achievement (the two higher classifica-
tions) in 2011 (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2011) when the project was initiated. Finally,
we identified four county school systems willing to support the project that also represented the
breadth of the region’s demographics. Poverty rates in the four counties range from 122% to 138%
of the national rate (13.8%); 2010 per capita income ranged from US$27,000 to $32,000, compared
to almost $40,000 for the nation and $44,000 for the state. College completion rates were 27–67%
of the national average (24.4%).

Recruitment Procedures and Participants

We followed institutional review board and county student recruitment policies and worked with the
superintendents of the four counties to choose high schools that maximized variety in characteristics
(e.g., size, location, and course offerings). Table 1 lists salient characteristics for each school.
The research team e-mailed the principals of each high school asking them to disseminate recruit-
ment materials to all juniors and seniors in their school, regardless of career plans or postsecondary
education plans. The recruitment materials included the student interview request and described the
study’s purpose. Specifically, we asked for volunteers to be interviewed for a National Science Foun-
dation funded research project on students’ decision-making regarding career choices. The purpose
was noted as needing to understand the relatively low participation of Appalachian youth entering the
engineering workforce and engineering careers. We specified our interest in all students, regardless of
their post–high school plans, to ensure an accurate representation of the region. We did not specifically
seek out college-orientated students. We interviewed all 24 students who volunteered, assented to par-
ticipation, and provided parental consent. We included all 24 interviews in this analysis. Participants
included 8 males and 16 females and 10 juniors and 14 seniors. All participants identified plans for
postsecondary education. Future plans ranged from trade school certifications to doctoral degrees, with
most describing plans to attend college (local community college or 4-year institution) immediately
following high school and one student already enlisted in the military. Career choices included social
work, health care, engineering, education, science, military, business, and unknown (Carrico &
Carrico et al. 99

Matusovich, 2016). Family background varied with respect to parental education, parental occupa-
tions, family structure (i.e., raised by parent(s) or by legal guardian(s)), and status as continuing gen-
eration Appalachian (CGA; defined as a student and at least one parent born in Central Appalachian
Virginia [CAV]; Carrico, 2013).

Data Collection Procedures

We used qualitative interviews with high school students as our primary data source, supplemented
with publicly available high school, subregion, and county statistical data. We conducted the inter-
views during the 2012–2013 academic year and at each participant’s school in a meeting room; each
lasted approximately one class period (45–60 min). All interviews were conducted jointly by one
male and one female (the lead author) interviewer, both of whom were graduate students at the time.
We developed the protocol based on the objectives of the larger research project. Relevant to this
analysis, the protocol was informed by SCCT, literature on Appalachia, and data from previous inter-
views with college engineering students from rural Appalachia. The final protocol contained 16 ques-
tions, with supplemental probes for each question, and moved from participants’ current experiences
to their community and finally to future plans (for a full description of the development process and
the protocol itself, see Carrico, Boynton, Matusovich, & Paretti, 2013). Relative to a career pathways
analysis, our interview questions addressed interests inside and outside school, potential jobs or
careers, jobs to avoid, next steps, and influential people.
Although our analysis included the full interview transcript for each participant, several questions
were particularly salient due to their alignment with career pathways. For example, responses to the
questions, “What type of job are you considering? Why?” yielded information on career goals and
insights about potential educational requirements. Follow-up questions such as “describe the reactions
of others” then explored students’ perceptions of proximal influences and the role of outcome expec-
tations, such as location or money. Similarly, the question “Is there a job or a career that you wish you
could pursue, but can’t?” revealed potential broken pathways. Follow-up questions here explored par-
ticipants’ reasons for rejecting potential careers to help make meaning of the experiences.

Analysis
We used a multistep approach to identify (1) salient variables influencing participants’ career choices
and (2) the pathways leading to those choices. While we describe two discrete steps, the process was
iterative as we checked findings within and between steps. The lead author was also the primary data
analyst; Authors 2 and 3 participated in reviews of and contributed to the findings (individuals who
provided intercoder reliability are noted in the Acknowledgments).
To identify salient variables, we began with a variable-centered approach (Miles & Huberman,
1994), analyzing transcripts using a priori coding informed by both SCCT and relevant prior research.
For example, in identifying outcome expectations (the broad SCCT category), we looked for expec-
tations such as remaining local; similarly, in identifying environmental influences, we looked for fam-
ily background (e.g., parental educational attainment) and geographical restrictions (e.g., desire to live
close to family or remain in the region for college). At the same time, we were attentive to emergent
codes. For example, as participants described their background, many described roots in the area dat-
ing back several generations, and thus the concept of “continuing generation Appalachian” emerged.
We then reviewed the transcripts holistically to explore relationships among variables and to identify
pathways leading to each individual’s career choice. In all, five pathways emerged, two directly
mapped to SCCT and three variants. Importantly, participants were not shown the SCCT model nor
explicitly asked to map their pathway; instead, these pathways emerged from our analysis of the inter-
view transcripts.
100 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Research Quality
To ensure trustworthiness, we focused on accuracy of data collection and validity of interpretation or
“accuracy of the findings” (Creswell, 2009, p. 190). In data collection, two interviewers were present
for all interviews to ensure that we probed to elicit participant meaning rather than relying on assumed
knowledge. During interpretation, the research team reviewed emerging findings and we used a formal
process for intercoder reliability such that two researchers independently coded transcripts using com-
mon codebooks and negotiated final code definitions to consensus (Creswell, 2009). To improve the
quality and reduce possible researcher bias, an external evaluator reviewed data collection, data anal-
ysis, and findings. In addition, we employed a form of member checking (Creswell, 2009) by having
school district personnel representing all four counties meet with the research team to review prelim-
inary findings; they provided positive feedback to confirm the findings.

Results
Career Choice Pathways
Our analysis revealed that 21 of the 24 participants followed one of five career choice pathways: Inter-
est, Purposeful Delay, Behavior Altering, Major Life Event, or Supportive. The remaining three par-
ticipants described a variety of possible pathways due to a variety of options described, and thus their
pathways were labeled Unknown. Interest and Purposeful Delay pathways align directly with SCCT
(Figure 1), while the remaining three identifiable pathway represent variations in the model. Notably,
the variant pathways were all shaped by significant environmental influences in the form of people
valued by the participants or major life events.

Interest. Six participants followed the SCCT pathway through interest to career choice. Participants
in this category described long-term interests that directly influenced their career choice, and they
provided multiple examples of that interest. These participants did not describe other people shaping
their interests or helping them link interest to career. Some explicitly said they could not remember
an event or person that led to their career choice, while others described their choice as something
they always wanted.
Paul and Emily provided examples that described their interests in terms of an inherent personal
trait and that linked their career choices directly to those interests. Paul is a junior, prospective
first-generation college (PFGC), and CGA, while Emily, also a junior, is not CGA and is not PFGC.
Paul exemplifies this category in that he repeatedly stated that he had always liked to make drawings
and could not pinpoint when his interest started. He liked his computer-aided drafting (CAD) work,
was taking CAD and drafting classes through the county trade school, and wanted to pursue architec-
tural drafting. Asked if he had considered any other jobs, Paul responded, “Not really that I’ve looked
into. This [architectural drafting] is the only one I’ve really looked into,” and he described choosing the
career because “basically . . . I like to draw.” Similarly, although she did not have a specific job title in
mind, Emily expressed interest in a career helping others conduct research because of her interest in
the process: “One aspect of university libraries and other aspects of library science is you can help
people do research, through historical documents and finding it on databases. I think that would be
really interesting. I’m really interested in research.”

Purposeful delay. Three participants intentionally planned to use college to explore options and
choose a career later. In terms of SCCT, this pathway represents the feedback loop from a choice
action (enter college) to new learning experiences that will help develop interests and shape
future goals. These participants articulated clear reasons for delaying their decisions as well as
clear plans to use college to identify a career choice. Jessica, a junior but not CGA nor a PFGC,
Carrico et al. 101

and Samantha, a senior and CGA but not PFGC provide examples. Jessica wanted to “know what
I want to do before I get something that might not work for me.” Although concerned about lack-
ing “the qualifications to do something I want to do,” she did not want to pursue a degree “then
get out of college and be like, oh, no, this is not what I want to do.” As a result, she explained
that selecting a career choice was “probably going to happen in college, to figure out, because
right now I have no clue about it.” Where Jessica delayed her decision to avoid negative outcome
expectations, Samantha delayed her decision to ensure that her career matched her interests:
“[T]hat’s probably the most important thing for me is to have something that I really care about
and that I’ll want to go to work every day.” She explained, “I’ve kind of left [the career decision]
to whenever I go to college I’ll decide from there, because I don’t really have a clue.” These
students recognized the value of additional learning experiences to identify or refine their inter-
ests and inform their career choices.

Behavior altering. Five participants, all seniors, were initially pursuing career choices based on interest,
but a strong external influence, typically a family member, persuaded them to alter their behavior. This
pathway varies from SCCT in that a proximal environmental influence (i.e., a person) disrupts the link
between interest and career and redirects participants to different outcome expectations that lead
directly to new career choices. In each instance, someone the participant valued persuaded him or her
to change from a preferred career choice based on interest to a new choice based on an outcome expec-
tation important to the influencer.
Participants in this category described the interests that led to their original career choice, what
proximal influence (person) caused them to change, and why that person wanted the participant to
change. Four of these participants cited parents as the primary influence and reported job stability
or income level as the key parental outcome expectations driving the change. The fifth, Lisa, a senior
and CGA and PFGC, cited her brother-in-law, whose military career seemed more likely to “make the
big difference” (outcome expectation) than her original choice. Fred, a senior and CGA and PFGC,
illustrated this pathway when he spoke of his interest in cars and his initial desire to work in the auto-
motive industry. But Fred’s father talked to him about the decline in that industry and the lack of local
jobs, describing that career as impractical. Instead, he suggested the medical field, which would always
need workers and be stable. As Fred explained,

Mostly my parents kind of pushed me into it because they, I mean, we both of us, me and dad, really like cars and
everything, and he just, we both talked about it, how the auto industry is failing and how everything else is going
up in the medical field so that was pretty much the deadline of how we pretty much chose it. (Fred, senior)

As a result, Fred planned to attend the local community college to become a nurse or a nurse practi-
tioner. Noting that his career choice no longer involved cars, Fred did not expect to enjoy his job
every day but indicated working on cars would continue as a hobby. Thus, like other participants
in this category, Fred took on the outcome expectations of his influencer and reshaped his career
choice accordingly, moving his interest to a “hobby” apart from work.

Major life event. Four participants, all CGA and PFCG, experienced a significant personal event that led
directly to a career choice. In this SCCT variation, a distal environmental influence (the event) leads
directly to the choice goal, bypassing the model’s intermediate factors. These participants did not
change their career choice based on the event, as the Behavior Altering group did, nor did they cite
career interests prior to the event. Instead, each explained how the event directly shaped their choice.
For two participants, the event was the death of a parent; a third cited adoption by a grandparent; and
the fourth cited medical issues.
102 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Brian, a senior, exemplified the Major Life Event pathway: when he was in elementary school, his
mother was studying for her pharmacy technician certification but died unexpectedly, which triggered
his career choice. When asked if his mother was still thinking about becoming a pharmacist, Brian said,
“Oh, no, she passed away, but, um—, but she was like going after her pharmacy degree or whatever. So
it kind of inspired me to fill her shoes, to pursue that.” Notably, interactions with professionals (doctors
and social workers) were often key components of these critical incidents. For example, Rachel, also a
senior, was adopted at a young age by her grandfather and described her interaction with the adoption
social worker as her inspiration to choose a career in social work; she wanted to help others in the same
way she was helped.

Supportive. Three participants followed a pathway in which proximal environmental influences (a person)
provide an essential bridge linking the participants’ interests to a potential career. Although this pathway
closely resembles SCCT, the link between interest and career is not direct, as in the Interest group, but
rather is mediated by the proximal influence. Without this supportive person, participants lacked the
knowledge to move from interest to career choice.
Though each participant in this group had different interests and received support at different
points, each one’s career choice was shaped when someone within the school system introduced them
to a career that supported their interest. Ashley, a senior and neither CGA nor PFGC, who had moved
to the area from a suburban Midwest environment as a sophomore, experienced her support through a
teacher at her former school:

We had a thing called Lego Robotics where we made robots with Legos, and I really liked that. And, um,
when my teacher said, you know, there are people out there which actually do this for a job, and I was like,
I would love to do this for a job. And, after I started researching what jobs out there had the same things
around that, then I realized I wanted to go into an [chuckles] engineering major. (Ashley, senior)

Similarly, Donna a senior, CGA, and PFGC, had an interest in theater but also wanted a financially
stable career, which she did not believe theater offered. A high school teacher showed her how to
incorporate her interest in theater into a career in social work, a more financially stable path. As a
result, Donna had spoken with a social worker about this idea, indicating that the proximal influence
sparked both intention and action toward a career.

Unknown Career Path

Three participants, all male, one senior and two juniors, were uncertain of their future career and thus
had Unknown career paths. All three participants were CGA, one intended on going to a 4-year col-
lege, one was uncertain, and one was considering either 4-year or 2-year college. Unlike the Purposeful
Delay students, these participants were not purposely deferring a career choice. The Unknown parti-
cipants vacillated between career choices and engaged in choice actions that would support a variety of
career choices; in addition, they did not indicate their decision was limited to the options stated. No
clear path within the SCCT framework, or that emerged from this research, captured the plans of these
participants as different pathways existed for their different possible career choices. For example, at
one point in his interview, Kyle reported consideration of architecture over engineering due to the dif-
ference in math requirements, yet during a different part of the interview he indicated that his decision
was actually based on the potential for a scholarship. He said, “I was looking at engineering. I’m sort of
leaning away from engineering to architecture and it’s really going to depend, I’m actually going to try
to get a golf scholarship [to a regional liberal arts college] . . . . It’s really going to depend where I get a
college scholarship.” When questioned how attending the liberal arts school may affect his career
choice, he responded, “I’m not sure what they [the college] do [degrees], but I know they have a good
Carrico et al. 103

Table 2. Summary of High School Career Pathways and Factors.

Intended Institution
Remain Income or
Pathway Code Participants CGA PFGC Local Job Stability 2-Year 4-Year Unknown

Interest 6 4 2 4 1 3 3 0
Purposeful Delay 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 0
Significant Environmental 12 11 10 9 6 4 5 2
Influence (total)
Behavior Altering 5 5 4 4 4 2 1 1
Major Life Event 4 4 4 4 0 1 2 1
Supportive 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0
Unknown 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1
Total 24 19 13 16 10 8 12 3
Note. CGA ¼ continuing generation Appalachian (CGA): distal environmental influence, coded yes if the participant and at least
one parent was born in the area. Obtained based on interview questions about where participants and their parents grew up.
PFGC ¼ prospective first-generation college: distal environmental influence, coded yes if neither parent had a 4-year degree.
Remain local: Outcome expectation, coded yes if participant commented on wanting to remain “local” (based on participant
definition, not specific geographic boundaries). Income/job stability: outcome expectation, coded yes if participant commented
on income or job stability as important.

business degree, so, I might actually get a business degree.” When probed on business versus archi-
tecture, he responded, “I haven’t really studied on it [the idea] that much yet because I’d actually just
changed to architecture.” The other two participants, Gary and Kevin, had similar stories of indecision
between possible career fields (e.g., business, law, and engineering for Gary), indicating additional
fields may be considered, and not yet knowing or deciding what factors will determine a their career
choice.

Career Choice Patterns

After identifying the pathways described above, we explored patterns between pathways and
other variables. Table 2 summarizes the pathways and salient variables for participants in our
study, including both a priori and emergent factors. The number in each column represents the
number of participants with a “yes” response. (Note that Table 2 shows only variables for which
we identified patterns; a full discussion of other variables considered in the larger study is avail-
able in Carrico, 2013).
The salient background environmental factors were PFGC-(neither parent had a 4-year college
degree) and CGA status. CGA status emerged from the data and represents a student who was born
and raised in the region and has at least one parent who was born in the region. The salient outcome
expectations were income/job stability and a desire to remain local.
Four patterns emerged relative to background, outcome expectations, and pathways. First, 12 of
the 24 participants reported a significant environmental influence relative to their career choice (all
in Behavior Altering, Major Life Event, or Supportive pathways), and 11 of those were CGA and
PFGC. Students in these three pathways tended to desire local employment and income or job
stability. Second, four of the six participants in the Interest pathway were CGA, and these same four
wanted to remain local but did not cite job stability as significant. Third, of the participants who had
purposefully delayed choosing a career path, none were PFGC and none planned to remain local or
cited job stability or income as salient. Instead, all wanted a career aligned with their interests.
The Purposeful Delay group also differed from the other groups in that all stated intentions to attend
a 4-year institution. Finally, with respect to CGA and outcome expectations, all participants who
104 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

preferred to remain local were CGA, and only 3 of the 19 CGAs did not identify this preference. At
the same time, none of the non-CGA participants cited a desire to remain local and none indicated
income or job stability as important. All of the Unknown participants were CGA and preferred to
remain local.

Discussion
The pathways and patterns identified in our analysis highlight two issues relative to career choice
pathways for students in CAV pursuing postsecondary education. First, some pathways vary from
SCCT in ways that suggest alternate routes through the major constructs. Second, several contextual
factors proved salient to these pathways. This work highlights the importance of understanding the
culturally relevant aspects of a study’s participants, as evidenced by studying rural Appalachian
students. Because they do not fit standard definitions, Appalachian students are an atypical under-
represented group and have become an “invisible minority because they do not appear outwardly
different from mainstream Americans” (Tang & Russ, 2007, p. 34). Importantly, it was the use of
qualitative research methods that enabled us to explore Appalachian student career choice develop-
ment and uncover new pathways.

Career Choice Pathways

While both the Interest and Purposeful Delay pathways align with SCCT, the 12 participants
whose pathways were shaped by significant environmental influences did not follow the model’s
path from interest to career choice. Although prior SCCT research supports interest as a promi-
nent, direct influence on career choices (Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008;
Lent, Sheu, et al., 2008; Morgan, Isaac, & Sansone, 2001), our results agree more closely with
research on underrepresented groups that report breaks in the interest–career choice link based
on context (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Garriott et al., 2016; Tang et al., 1999). Our results also
echo Kim and Seo’s (2014) work linking the prominence of interest to dominant U.S. and Eur-
opean cultural values. Where Kim and Seo highlight variations across national cultures, our work
points to equally important variations within the United States. In this case, salient values
included characteristically rural Appalachian attitudes toward family and community. These val-
ues resulted in pathways not predicted in the present SCCT model. Distal and proximal environ-
mental influences, often family or close community members, rerouted the pathways of the
Behavior Altering and Major Life Event groups and provided a key bridge for the Supportive
group. Moreover, for the Behavior Altering and Major Life Event groups, interest in the career
choice played little to no role; instead, environmental influences dominated participants’ career
choices. The use of participants’ stories as data enabled concrete details of how environmental
influences both support and hinder possible career choices. These data also allowed a deeper
understanding that some students who are undecided or considering multiple possibilities may
also be vacillating between different pathways through the SCCT model.
Participants in the Unknown category did not have a pathway through the model, as they lacked
clarity and specificity of career goals and choice actions. The presence of this grouping of students
highlights a potential gap in research that assumes goals are clear and under the control of the student
(i.e., not hinged on a possible scholarship or other factor).

Salient Factors: Environmental Influences

The variant pathways and patterns highlight factors of CAV that play powerful roles in students’ career
choice pathways. Whether proximal or distal, environmental influences directly shaped the career
Carrico et al. 105

choices of more than half the study participants and resulted in career choices not directly linked to
interest. These findings complement studies on other underrepresented groups that illustrated the role
cultural and contextual factors play in career choices (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Tang et al., 1999). In
our case, these factors relate to the role of family and include family background (CGA), parental edu-
cation, and family outcome expectations; they emerged most notably in participants’ desire for careers
that would allow them to remain local (and thus close to family), their willingness to honor parental
preferences regarding job choice, and their preferences for attending local colleges and universities.
Contextual factors were particularly evident in the Behavior Altering category. Four of the five
Behavior Altering participants were PFGC, cited strong family influence on their outcome expecta-
tions and career choices, and identified outcome expectations associated with local employment and
job/income stability. These factors reflect the strong community culture as well as local economic
conditions. Interestingly, in contrast to Gibbons and Borders’s (2010) findings showing lower family
support and lower positive outcome expectations for college among PFGC students, our findings point
to strong family support and outcome expectations among the PFGC students in this study, albeit at the
potential expense of interest. Similarly, participants in the Major Life Event group share characteristics
found in Appalachian career choice literature: All were PFGC and wanted to remain local (Ali &
McWhirter, 2006; Haaga, 2004; Petrin et al., 2014). However, unlike participants in other studies, our
participants did not reference job stability or income. This pattern may indicate that while the strong
community culture influences career choices, other factors may mitigate economic concerns. Finally,
within the Supportive group, the patterns were more mixed; two of the three participants were PFGC
and two cited income/job stability as important, suggesting some alignment with previous work.
While these characteristics of CAV are important to the three pathways shaped by significant
environmental influences, they were notably unimportant for the Purposeful Delay group. These three
participants stood in contrast to most others in that all planned to attend a 4-year institution, none were
PFGC, only one was CGA, none wanted to remain local for school or work, and none cited job stability
or income as key outcome expectations. And unlike the Behavior Altering group, who moved
away from interest-related careers in response to family influence, all Purposeful Delay participants
explicitly wanted a career related to their interests. This group also represents an understudied popu-
lation. Prior work considers students who were deciding among the workforce, vocational, and post-
secondary plans or addresses college students’ persistence toward career choices (Ali & McWhirter,
2006; Chenoweth & Galliher, 2004; Lent, Sheu, et al., 2008; Wettersten et al., 2005). Far less work
considers students who plan to use college to shape career choice. One such study, Rowan-Kenyon,
Perna, and Swan (2011), reported that students delaying a career decision until college typically were
supported by their parents and were from high schools with average or high socioeconomic back-
ground and average or high student achievement—much like the Purposeful Delay group. The stark
contrast between the Purposeful Delay group and those in the environmental influence pathways high-
lights the types of backgrounds that allow students to use college to make career choices and, impor-
tantly for this study, reinforces the role of family background and CGA status for students in rural
Appalachia.
CGA status, in fact, emerged as a new factor from this study. Although literature on Appalachia
reports the importance of family as part of the culture (Ali & McWhirter, 2006; Bennett, 2008; Sarnoff,
2003; Tang & Russ, 2007), such work typically does not distinguish CGA from non-CGA individuals.
Yet, for this case study, status as a CGA was linked to the desire for local employment, which in turn
strongly influenced career choices. This link may enrich Petrin et al.’s (2014) findings regarding the
persistent desire to “stay local” among high-achieving rural youth nationally; depth of family roots in
an area may also be significant in other locations. At the same time, while many participants provided
information consistent with low socioeconomic status (SES), their marked preference to remain local
suggests an important difference between rural Appalachia and low SES urban areas, where leaving is
often a goal (Anderson, 1990). However, half of the CGA participants cited income and job stability as
106 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

key factors, creating the same conflict seen in Petrin et al. (2014) between the desire to remain local
and the local economic outlook. In contrast, none of the non-CGA participants mentioned staying local
or job stability as salient to their career choices. In addition, none of the non-CGA participants were
PFGC. Notably, the Unknown participants were all CGA and, compared to the other participants, their
network of environmental influences and learning experiences may not be sufficient to assist them
with adequate, specific information to make career choice decisions (Carrico & Matusovich, 2016;
Matusovich, Carrico, Paretti, & Boynton, 2017).

Limitations
Two limitations in this study point toward future research. First, although the study explores career
choice relative to postsecondary education, intention to attend college does not correspond to college
enrollment (Executive Office of the President, 2014). The pathways found here may not apply equally
to those who actually enroll in college, and their applicability to noncollege-bound students is
unknown. Future work could expand the study population and include vocational occupations and
longitudinal work to test planned versus actual pathways. Second, because we did not ask about family
economic status, we cannot link findings directly to SES. However, where participants lived indirectly
indicates SES, as did responses to questions about parental jobs and education. Future research would
benefit from direct economic data to better understand this link.

Conclusions and Future Work

For the rural CAV counties studied, our findings demonstrate the ways in which environmental influ-
ences such as family and rurality may be primary drivers for career choices. These findings offer two
contributions to research and practice relative to postsecondary career choice among college-oriented
high school students in the region. Our findings also support the importance of qualitative research as a
means to explore and explain the “why” of decision-making.
First, students’ pathways to career choices may deviate from frameworks developed from studies on
other populations in ways that are context-specific. With respect to SCCT, distal background experi-
ences, proximal supports, and outcome expectations were especially pertinent and resulted in variant
pathways that diminished the role of interest and increased the salience of environmental influences.
Further research on these variations in these counties and similar contexts could help educators support
the development of career choices among rural Appalachian students. Such support may include pro-
fessional development for counselors and career coaches as well as interventions with students and
parents. At the same time, the importance of these factors has immediate practical implications for
school personnel involved in supporting high school students’ career choices. By showing the breaks
between interest and career choice, our findings point to the need to both provide students with clear,
explicit links between interest and careers (as in the Supportive group) and to explore and leverage the
local values that can supersede interest. That is, while the specific contextual influences identified in
this study may not transfer to other contexts, the prominence of such influences suggests that counse-
lors and others need to identify and work with the salient influences in their own contexts. Rural com-
munities may offer ideal settings for such alignment because smaller populations often provide
increased opportunities to know and understand their community values.
Second, these findings highlight the ways in which students with different backgrounds, even
within the same context, use different approaches. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers
and educators to adapt frameworks and methods to accommodate the perspectives and backgrounds
of students. In particular, both groups should exercise care when considering generalized data, not just
for CAV but for other rural students. Here, too, lower school enrollments may be an advantage, allow-
ing counselors and teachers to more easily gather such knowledge. With respect to rural Appalachia in
Carrico et al. 107

particular, both published data and future work should consider CGA status as a major mitigating fac-
tor. Given the marked differences in career choice patterns between CGA and non-CGA participants,
our results highlight the need for researchers, school administrators, and educators to consider this dis-
tinction when conducting research, reporting findings, and working with students. Residency in Appa-
lachia alone may not explain the effects of local culture and context on career choice pathways.
Our study confirmed that qualitative research, though not generalizable, is able to provide valuable
insight into why and how local culture and context may cause alternative paths to those suggested by
SCCT. Now that we know these pathways exist, our research lays the foundation for further studies
into behavior altering or supportive pathways, how they form, and what they mean for future out-
comes. Our research also suggests a need to further examine the importance of the environmental
influences and specifically how family members or educators can better inform and support career
choice pathways. Thus, our recommendations include adding specific questions related to encourage-
ment to change a career choice (behavior altering) or exposure to new, previously unknown career
options that meet a student’s outcome expectations. In addition, background questions to determine
CGA status (or similar status for other areas).
Finally, because our research looked only at high school students, future work should explore long-
itudinal trends. Because high school students’ plans do not always fully materialize, longitudinal
research is critical in exploring pathways, supports, and barriers for student persistence toward career
choices. Nationally, as many as 20% of high school seniors who were accepted and planned to attend
college failed to matriculate in the fall, and this phenomenon is more prevalent among low-income
students (Executive Office of the President, 2014). In addition, gaps exist between students’ preferred
career choices and their attained goals (Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011), and some students may have
unrealistic expectations about their career goals (Boden, 2011; Conroy, 1997). As our work shows, the
career goals (and possibly uncertain goals) of rural students are shaped by local contexts in critical
ways, and educators and researchers working with these students can benefit by increased attention
to the nuances of salient environmental factors.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the school administrators and students who supported this work, Dr. Matthew Boy-
nton of the research team for his assistance with data collection, and Dr. Rachel McCord for her role
with intercoder reliability.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foun-
dation under Grant No. EEC-1232629. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation. Human subject Institutional Review Board approval is through Virginia
Tech IRB-12-444.

References
Ali, S. R., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). Rural Appalachian youth’s vocational/educational postsecondary aspira-
tions: Applying social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 33, 87–111. doi:10.1177/
0894845306293347
108 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Ali, S. R., & Saunders, J. L. (2006). College expectations of rural Appalachian youth: An exploration of social
cognitive career theory factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 38–51.
Ali, S. R., & Saunders, J. L. (2009). The career aspirations of rural Appalachian high school students. Journal of
Career Assessment, 17, 172–188. doi:10.1177/1069072708328897
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Appalachian Regional Commission. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?
MAP_ID¼54
Appalachian Regional Commission. (2015). College completion rates in Appalachia, 2009–2013 (county rates).
Retrieved from www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?
Azano, A. (2011). The possibility of place: One teacher’s use of place-based instruction for English students in a
rural high school. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26, 1–12. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://
jrre.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/26-10.pdf
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.
Bennett, S. L. R. (2008). Contextual affordances of rural Appalachian individuals. Journal of Career Develop-
ment, 34, 241–262. doi:10.1177/0894845307311252
Betz, N. E. (2007). Career self-efficacy: Exemplary recent research and emerging directions. Journal of Career
Assessment, 15, 403–422. doi:10.1177/1069072707305759
Boden, K. (2011). Perceived academic preparedness of first-generation Latino college students. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 96–106. doi:10.1177/1538192711402211
Boynton, M. (2014). People not print: Exploring engineering future possible self development in rural areas of
Tennessee’s Cumberland plateau. Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu.ezproxy.
lib.vt.edu:8080/handle/10919/25332
Brown, S. D., Ryan Krane, N. E., Brecheisen, J., Castelino, P., Budisin, I., Miller, M., & Edens, L. (2003). Critical
ingredients of career choice interventions: More analyses and new hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Beha-
vior, 62, 411–428.
Carrico, C. (2013). Voices in the mountains: A qualitative study exploring factors influencing Appalachian high
school students’ engineering career goals. (PhD Dissertation), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Carrico, C., Boynton, M., Matusovich, H. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). Development of an interview protocol to
understand engineering as a career choice for Appalachian youth. Paper presented at the American Society of
Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.
Carrico, C., & Matusovich, H. M. (2016). A qualitative examination of rural central Appalachian high school stu-
dent knowledge of the college processes needed to meet career goals. Journal of Women and Minorities in
Science and Engineering, 22, 259–280. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2016013308.
Chenoweth, E., & Galliher, R. (2004). Factors influencing college aspirations of rural West Virginia high
school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 19, 1–14. Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/
articles/19-2
Coladarci, T. (2007). Improving the yield of rural education research: An editor’s swan song. Journal of Research
in Rural Education, 22, 22–23. Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-3.pdf
Conroy, C. A. (1997). Predictors of occupational choice among rural youth: Implications for career education
and development programming. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL, March 24–28, 1997.
Corrente, M. (2013). High school to college and careers 2013. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from http://www.sreb
.org/page/1622/high_school_to_college_and_careers_2013.html
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carrico et al. 109

Executive Office of the President. (2014). Increasing college opportunity for low-income students (p. 47).
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/white_house_report_ on_increasing_
college_opportunity_for_low-income_students_1-16-2014_final.pdf
Fletcher, E. C., Jr. (2012). Predicting the influence of demographic differences and schooling experience in ado-
lescence on occupational choice in adulthood. Career & Technical Education Research, 37, 121–139. doi:10.
5328/cter37.2.121
Flores, L. Y., & O’Brien, K. M. (2002). The career development of Mexican American adolescent women:
A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 14–27. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.49.1.14
Fouad, N. A., & Byars, W. (2005). Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences.
The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 223–233.
Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: Math and
science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338–346. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.338
Garriott, P. O., Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Zoma, L., Mackie-Hernandez, D., & Lavin, K. (2016). Social cognitive
predictors of Mexican American high school students’ math/science career goals. Journal of Career Develop-
ment, 44, 77–90. doi:10.1177/0894845316633860
Gibbons, M. M., & Borders, L. D. (2010). Prospective first-generation college students: A social-cognitive
perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 194–208.
Gordon, V. N. (1998). Career decidedness types: A literature review. The Career Development Quarterly, 46,
386–403. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1998.tb00715.x
Haaga, J. (2004). Educational attainment in Appalachia. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission
Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/research/ResearchReports.asp?F_CATEGORY¼15.
Irvin, M. J., Byun, S., Meece, J. L., Farmer, T. W., & Hutchins, B. C. (2012). Educational barriers of rural youth.
Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 71–87. doi:10.1177/1069072711420105
Jacobs, J. E., Finken, L. L., Griffin, N. L., & Wright, J. D. (1998). The career plans of science-talented rural
adolescent girls. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 681–704.
Kim, M. S., & Seo, Y. S. (2014). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in South Korean
engineering students. Journal of Career Development, 41, 526–546. doi:10.1177/0894845313519703
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A
review of the literature (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career
research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 12–35. doi:10.1177/1069072705281364
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and
academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. doi:10.1006/
jvbe.1994.1027
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social
cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., . . . Treistman, D. (2005).
Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and stu-
dents at historically black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84–92. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.52.1.84
Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Jr., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction
of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 52–62. doi:10.
1016/j.jvb.2008.01.002
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S. (2008). Longitudinal relations
of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73, 328–335. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.07.005
Matusovich, H. M., Carrico, C., Paretti, M. C., & Boynton, M. (2017). Engineering as a career choice in rural Appa-
lachia: Sparking and sustaining interest. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 1–13.
110 Journal of Career Development 46(2)

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female
and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320. doi:10.1023/A:1010929600004
Petrin, R. A., Schafft, K. A., & Meece, J. L. (2014). Educational sorting and residential aspirations among rural
high school students: What are the contributions of schools and educators to rural brain drain? American
Educational Research Journal, 51, 294–326. doi:10.3102/0002831214527493
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Perna, L. W., & Swan, A. K. (2011). Structuring opportunity: The role of school context in
shaping high school students’ occupational aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 330–344.
Sarnoff, S. (2003). Central Appalachia—Still the other America. Journal of Poverty, 7, 123–139.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social
sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Seufert, R. L., & Carrozza, M. A. (2004). Economic advances and disadvantages in Appalachia: Occupation, labor
force participation, and unemployment. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 10, 331–339.
Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition.
Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 8–14.
Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans’ career choices: A path model to examine factors
influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 142–157. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1651
Tang, M., & Russ, K. (2007). Understanding and facilitating career development of people of Appalachian cul-
ture: An integrated approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 34–46.
U.S. Census. (2010). 2010 Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
Wahl, K. H., & Blackhurst, A. (2000). Factors affecting the occupational and educational aspirations of children
and adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 3, 367–374.
Wallace, L. A., & Diekroger, D. K. (2000). The ABCs in Appalachia: A descriptive view of perceptions of higher
education in Appalachian culture. Presented at the annual conference of the women of Appalachia: Their
heritage and accomplishments, Zanesville, OH.
Wettersten, K. B., Guilmino, A., Herrick, C. G., Hunter, P. J., Kim, G. Y., Jagow, D., . . . McCormick, J. (2005).
Predicting educational and vocational attitudes among rural high school students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 658–663. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.658
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Author Biographies
Cheryl Carrico is a research scientist in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Her current
research relates to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) career pathways, conceptual understand-
ing of engineering principles, and student motivations to learn engineering. Her focus includes understanding
these research areas from the perspective of underrepresented youth. She participates in many STEM-related out-
reach activities in Appalachia including founding a multicounty annual sixth-grade girls STEM workshop, pro-
viding teacher and student STEM workshops, and being on the Board of Trustees for the Southwest Virginia
Higher Education Center in Abingdon, VA. She received her B.S. in chemical engineering from Virginia Tech,
masters of engineering from North Carolina State University, MBA from King University, and PhD in engineering
education from Virginia Tech and is a licensed professional engineer. Her hobbies include those in abundance in
the mountains of Virginia such as hiking, biking, and kayaking.
Holly M. Matusovich is an associate professor in Virginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education. She has
a doctorate in engineering education and her strengths include qualitative and mixed methods research study
design and implementation. She is/was PI/Co-PI on 10 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER
Award. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for outstanding new faculty and
a faculty fellow award. Her research expertise includes using motivation and related frameworks to study student
Carrico et al. 111

engagement in learning, recruitment, and retention in engineering programs and careers, faculty teaching prac-
tices, and intersections of motivation and learning strategies. Her hobbies include traveling, photography, and
beekeeping.
Marie C. Paretti is a professor of engineering education at Virginia Tech, where she codirects the Virginia Tech
Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). She received a BS in chemical engineering and an MA in English
from Virginia Tech, and a PhD in English from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on
communication and collaboration, design education, and identity (including race, gender, class, etc.) in engineer-
ing. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone
design courses and is PI or co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, teamwork, design, and iden-
tity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity development, her work includes studies
on the teaching and learning of communication, effective teaching practices in design education, the effects of
differing pedagogies on personal and professional identities, the dynamics of cross-disciplinary collaboration
in both academic and industry design environments, and gender and identity in engineering. When not at work,
she can be found pulling weeds in her garden or bicycling the back roads of Craig County, VA.