Abstract
What bearing have you set you set your sights on? How do you navigate the ever-changing swells and winds of our professional landscape? Are you feeling a nebulous desire for change, that your career is not going in the direction you were expecting, worry about lack of future opportunities, or even a deep dissatisfaction in your current position? You are not alone. The formation of the Committee on Advanced Training for Certified Genetic Counselors (CATCGC) was partly in response to such sentiments, expressed within a vibrant dialogue amongst members of the genetic counseling community. The CATCGC sought to understand how genetic counselors chart courses for their careers by conducting a Decision Points exercise during a pre-conference symposium (PCS) at the 2014 NSGC Annual Education Conference. Participants were asked to identify a decision point at which they were most satisfied with their careers and one at which they were least satisfied and to describe the situation, their personal goals and intentions, any actions they took, and the outcomes. Qualitative analysis in the constructivist tradition was conducted on participants’ responses and facilitators’ notes from the PCS to explore what personal meanings were made of the decision points; twelve themes related to Career High Points, Low Points, and how genetic counselors made career transitions were identified. Using a constructivist framework, themes are presented in the context of the authors’ personal experiences, and the authors’ share their reflections on these data. We wrote this article to offer you a window into your peers’ experiences - the good, the bad, and the ugly - hoping to encourage and challenge you to reflect deeply, no matter where you are on your career journey.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baty, B. J. (2014). Committee on advanced training for certified genetic counselors. Perspectives in Genetic Counseling, Quarter, 3, 10–11.
Berg, B. L. & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed. ). Boston: Pearson.
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5, 475–497.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (pp. 53–84). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed. ). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Ellis, C. (1998). Exploring loss through autoethnographic inquiry: Autoethnographic stories, co-constructed narratives, and interactive interviews. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Perspectives on loss: A sourcebook (pp. 49–61). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Grubs, R. E. & Piantanida, M. (2010). Grounded theory in genetic counseling research: an interpretive perspective. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(2), 99–111.
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative social research, 11(3), article 8: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027, Accessed on 12 Nov 2015.
Mather, M. & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Choice-supportive source monitoring: do our decisions seem better to us as we age? Psychology and Aging, 15, 596–606.
McKee, A. & Eraut, M. (Eds.) (2011). Learning trajectories, innovation and identity for professional development (vol. 7, ). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded coursebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Miranda, C., Veach, P. M., Martyr, M. A., & LeRoy, B. S. (2015). Portrait of the master genetic counselor clinician: a qualitative investigation of expertise in genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling. doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9863-3.
Nagy, R., Peay, H., Hicks, M., Kloos, J., Westman, R., Conway, L., et al. (2014). Genetic counselors’ and genetic counseling students’ attitudes around the clinical doctorate and other advanced educational options for genetic counselors: a report from the genetic counseling advanced degree task force. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 24(4), 626–634.
National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2014). 2014 Professional status survey: professional satisfaction. Available at http://www.nsgc.org/. Accessed 7 May 2015.
Reiser, C., LeRoy, B., Grubs, R., & Walton, C. (2015). Report on an investigation into an entry level clinical doctorate for the genetic counseling profession and a survey of the association of genetic counseling program directors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 24(5), 689–701.
Resta, R. G. (2009). Forward. In W. R. Uhlmann, J. L. Schuette, & B. Yashar (Eds.), A guide to genetic counseling (pp. xv–xvi). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Richards, L. & Morse, J. (2007). Chapter 5: Making data. In L. Richards & J. Morse (Eds.), Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (pp. 107–132). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Richardson, L. (1994). Chapter 32: Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Acknowledgments
We’d like to thank all of the PCS participants and all of the members of the CATCGC. Thanks also to Jehannine Austin, Bonnie Baty, Anne Matthews, and Angie Trepanier for supportive reviews of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Author CH and Author CD declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Considerations
All procedures performed as part of the work for this publication were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. No animal studies were performed.
Additional information
Catriona Hippman and Claire Davis are joint first authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hippman, C., Davis, C. & on behalf of the Committee on Advanced Training for Certified Genetic Counselors. Put Yourself at the Helm: Charting New Territory, Correcting Course, and Weathering the Storm of Career Trajectories. J Genet Counsel 25, 720–730 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9936-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9936-y