I shifted my plan from using surveys to supplement my secondary research to engaging in in-depth sequential interviews. I will hold the educational background of the interviewees relatively steady by interviewing graduates of highly selective colleges and universities. Given that my intention is to understand how Millennials operate in the workplace from their perspective as well as their in-depth thoughts about goals, work life and career, interviews make more sense than surveys.
This week, I spent time working out how Shauna Shames’ framework for understanding Millennials in Out of the Running maps on to Millennial career aspirations more generally. Shames positions Millennials as rational thinkers; in other words, they engage in cost-benefit analyses to make decisions. While this may appear to be an oversimplification that fails to account for emotion or other factors market analysis assumes “irrational,” this framework can and should include social and emotional considerations in its understanding of both costs and benefits.
Using this modified cost-benefit analysis framework will enable me to narrow down what economic and political factors are actually relevant to the types of decisions Millennials are making. In other words, what happens when we don’t ask Millennials about how specific events shaped their worldview and career goals? If they don’t cite the Recession, for example, as important, then it isn’t fitting into their calculated cost-benefit analysis. An article in The Morning Call claims that 9/11 shaped Millennial worldview but also quotes a Millennial saying, “I would be a pretty poor patriot if I said, ‘Not much,’ when asked what I remember about 9/11…That’s not a socially acceptable response” (Wagaman 2016). Would this person consider 9/11 when making choices going forward, or have they simply been socialized to provide an emotional response when probed.
The cost-benefit framework also positions Millennials as rational and able to distinguish between ideal wants and reality. This way of looking at Millennial behavior that is sometimes coded as entitled can show the myriad factors Millennials consider when making decisions. This could be a really valuable way of looking at generational differences; different generations find different information salient and compelling and base decisions off of a rational balancing act of information that accounts for their values.
I expect this framework will leave gaps; not everything will add up, and I’m not quite sure how I will process or attempt to understand data that fits into that category. Returning to the question of whether Millennials bring up particular historical events or economic periods, just because they don’t doesn’t mean they were unaffected. How can this framework account for events that have affected people’s lives and contexts, but that they may not self-report? Another challenge I anticipate in employing Shames’ framework is related to visible factors of identity: Shames demonstrated how race and gender can be considered within the rational actor framework. I’m not sure however, how I will merge that with the racialized nature of labeling of entitled behavior—if that assumption is indeed apt.
Next Steps: I started reaching out and setting up interviews, now it’s go time!