Career Counseling with Underserved Populations Model (CCUP)
Mark Pope 2011 – 2015
I have finally been able to get my hands on a copy of ‘Exploring New Horizons in Career Counselling’, which is the book in which Pope’s work on this is taken up (chapter 18), for the benefit of writing up this theory. If you have the chance, I would recommend trying to get hold of this yourself as it’s an interesting read.
Table of Content
Disclaimer and introduction
This is a theory page without a ‘pretty graphic’ because I can’t see one being possible (which is unusual! :-)). Rather than follow the familiar format, what I have written here, especially the key 13 points which make up the model, is an attempt to summarise, but also to offer a very partial critique on Pope’s model to help you generate opportunities for discussion and contemplation, whether or not as part of CPD, whether in group with colleagues or individually. My intention is to help individual career guidance practitioners, including myself, to come to grips with the material of Pope’s Model. The terminology used here is reflecting that of Pope.
Much of what Pope discusses here is based on his experience and research and much, much more can be discussed and written about this. This is also a very emotive and especially at the time of writing this, politically sensitive topic. I hope this triggers a positive and supportive discussion with peers and colleagues that can further the good practice that many of us already employ when working with clients from culturally diverse backgrounds. I hope these discussions can happen in a safe and accepting environment in which everyone’s experiences and points of view can be taken on board in an open way that promotes learning and professional development.
Within what I have written I have tried to avoid any political statements but I apologise if anything I have written has not been able to keep to this in your view.
Introduction to Pope’s work.
The premise of this model is based on Pope’s argument that offering career counselling to culturally diverse individuals or groups is different from offering career counselling or guidance to clients from majority cultures (Pope, 2015, p. 297).
Pope further claims that these groups are ‘underserved’ because career guidance services shy away from supporting clients from culturally diverse groups, or if they do, they offer a poor service (Pope, 2015, p. 297). The model Pope suggests is aimed at rectifying this for career services across the world.
Pope recognises quite rightly that the world is becoming more culturally diverse and this, again quite rightly, needs to be mirrored in the service we offer. Pope can speak with more authority on this issue as he is a member of several cultural minorities himself and therefore has first hand experience of this topic (Pope, 2015, p. 299).
In his work, Pope quotes some of the barriers these culturally diverse groups may encounter (Pope, 2015, p. 298). The examples he uses are:
- Discrimination – in housing, jobs, employee benefits, etc…
- Inequitable access to resources – including high quality education and access to career guidance
- Cultural differences such as language differences, religious differences and value differences from the dominant culture,…
I think these are valid observations and a very necessary addition to career theory in the UK as well. At the time of writing this in 2025, immigration is also very much in the news most days and for career professionals to recognise that we need to include in our practice the same quality of support for culturally diverse clients is important.
It’s easy to focus on Pope’s work as linked to individuals from different geographical areas but Pope also includes LGBT clients, which is testament to his focus on this group in a lot of his other work. By exploring his theory, it would therefore be imperative not to limit our view of where this theory applies to culturally diverse clients that have come from outside the UK, but also to include those from within the UK. People who are born and grew up here, and even people who at first sight are not different from what Pope calls the majority culture. In essence, what this means is that whoever we have in front of us as the client, can fall within the remit of this theory and it’s on us to be non-judgmental in this context too and not to make assumptions, but to explore with the client who and where they are and what the important themes and issues are in their life. Within that, we need to be very aware of our biases and presumptions as well as our habitual thinking to minimise or ideally avoid the chance of causing harm to the client or the working relationship with the client.
Pope’s concept of ‘cultural minorities’ is very broad and can include clients we may not generally perceive as such. To clarify the terminology used in his work, he states that he uses “ ‘culturally diverse’ as an identifier for individuals who are from non-dominant or non-majority cultures, such as various ethnic and racial minorities, various gender and sexual minorities (women [!?? Note for discussion?], transgender people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, questioning and intersex individuals), and many other cultural groups (disabled persons, the elderly, the poor, rural persons, and others) (Pope, 2015, p. 299).
He further clarifies that both the terms “dominant” and “majority” are used here to imply numeric quantity and/or power, with “culture” used inclusively, that is, to include at least each of the above groups (Pope, 2015, p. 299) and that an individual client can incorporate many different ‘cultures’.
I thought it would be important to include the two quotations above to ensure that his work is understood in the way he intends it to be understood.
Within all of this, while exploring this model and Pope’s work, we need to be aware that this itself rests on work from within a culture different to that of the UK. Even though we broadly speak the same language, the cultural, social and political context in the US is very different to that in the UK, as we can often observe in the media. Let’s see how the model works…
Pope’s model of Career Counselling with Underserved Populations in more detail
Details of the model with points for discussion and reflection but also points of critique of the model. He proposes that there are 13 keys to his model.
13 Keys for Working with Clients from Underserved Populations
Key #1: take responsibility for your own biases and prejudices
- As mentioned above, this is key to any career guidance intervention, including those with ‘majority culture’ clients. This is a well familiar basis for us already but one which is important to reiterate, especially when working with clients who are very different from us. Pope too, recognises that if we allow our biases to come through in the intervention, the client is not going to resonate with us and is understandably going to switch off from the intervention (Pope, 2015, p. 301).
- As we all recognise, no one is free from internalised biases and awareness of them is key, as well as taking action when they are recognised during or before an intervention so they don’t interfere. Pope argues that these biases can be overcome by exposing ourselves to diverse cultures in any way we can (Pope, 2015, p. 301)
- How can we recognise or be made aware of our biases, which are by definition almost, unconscious?
Key #2: know the process of cultural identity development and use it
- This is at first sight a bit more difficult to get to grips with but Pope offers us a structure to work with. Pope uses a US example and I’ll leave it up to you to see how it applies to the UK in your experience. I have tried to translate this to a more international context, but it may be useful to try and get hold if his original. He clarifies this by explaining that, supported by extensive research by him and others, the development of cultural identity enfolds as follows (Adapted from Pope, 2015, p. 302):
- Stage 0: Naiveté: individual has no awareness of self as part of a culturally diverse group
- Stage 1: Acceptance: individual accepts and conforms to the social, cultural, and institutional standards of the dominant culture
- Stage 2: Resistance and naming: dedication toward rejection of the social, cultural, and institutional standards of the dominant culture
- Stage 3: Redefinition and reflection: attempts to develop values, goals, structures, and traditions unique to the culturally diverse culture and immersion in this culture. Pride linked to the culture begins to develop
- Stage 4: Multi-perspective internalisation: the individual develops a sense of inner security and can own and accept those aspects of dominant culture that are seen as healthy and can stand against those things that are not (eg.: racism, sexism, homophobia, etc…)
- If this is applicable to UK society, then this could be a tool with which we can interpret and understand certain responses and reaction by ‘culturally diverse’ clients.
Key #3: know the special issues of the specific cultures
- Here, Pope proposes taking an interest in diverse cultures (Pope, 2015, p. 302), but how far can we take this? I feel there is only so much we can do, but at the same time, we are familiar with our client base and the different cultural groups within it, and therefore what we can reasonably expect. This may make it easier to assess where to focus our efforts within this.
- In my view it’s also important to realise our presumptions in this context. Are we interpreting these ‘special issues’ in a way that resonates with the client’s cultural reality and perspective? Or are we imposing our own on what we observe and learn?
Key #4: directly address issues of discrimination
- Pope quite rightly states that discrimination is real and that it affects clients in subtle and less subtle ways, every day in many aspects of their lives (Pope, 2015, p. 303). Even though in the UK people are supposed to not be discriminated against if they have certain protected characteristics, this doesn’t mean that discrimination doesn’t happen, and those protected characteristics are not an exclusive list either. Pope argues in favour of the career professional openly discussing issues of discrimination, even if they are not mentioned by clients. I have conflicting feelings about this, though I accept the premise that discrimination needs to be out in the open for it to be tackled and rooted out. What do you think?
Key #5: group career counselling has a strong appeal to many racial and ethnic minority clients
- This is self-explanatory I feel, but it’s an interesting point with some points for discussion. Does this suggests a group of culturally like-minded people? Or do we need to preferably offer group career counselling/work if one or two of the clients would culturally resonate with this and others won’t? What is your view?
- We need to be careful not to over-interpret this and Pope provides very specific examples of clients from more collectivist cultures. Especially here is where we need to be careful not to mis-interpret the socio-cultural context of clients or even worse, to stereotype. Open communication is key I think, to make sure ‘we know what we are doing’ and why… Pope can only go so far as to use a couple of some very specific examples.
Key #6: pay particular attention to the role of the family
- Here too, Pope uses the example of more collectivist cultures, to which this applies more than more individualist cultures, of course. This is an important consideration in any case, and especially when working with young people, the parent or carer is an important aspect of a young person’s social sphere of influence, whether they are from a culturally diverse community or not. I do accept Pope’s argument, of course, but I think here too, ‘over-interpretation’, assumptions and in the worst case, stereotyping has to be avoided by using open communication during an intervention, to gauge the role of the family and social context in a client’s life. This can be by picking up clues and reflecting back to make sure they are correct, or by open discussion, depending on your assessment of what is possible or best.
Key #7: pay attention to the special issues of dual-career couples
- I had some difficulty defining what a dual-career couple is, but as I understand it, it can be defined as a couple where both partners have a demanding professional career. The implication of this is that individual clients need to take account of their own career, but also that of their partner, the client’s value framework, but also that of their partner. Pope suggest working with both partners in tandem (Pope, 2015, p. 305), which would be ideal in these circumstances, but what would you do if that wasn’t possible? Is this a concept that’s familiar to you?
Key #8: be aware of the special issues when using career assessment inventories with individuals from various cultural communities
- Within this, Pope includes interest inventories, card sorts and personality tests (Pope, 2015, p. 306) and urges us to think about how these tools are used with people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Pope uses a particular example to illustrate this, where gay and lesbian clients were fearful of exposure of their sexual orientation through these tools and also quoted possible bias and heteronormative interpretations of the results of those tools. I think this is an interesting example in itself that is easily overlooked and could be a good prompt for further discussion and CPD, especially where these tools are used extensively, but also for those developing any tools, not just in the context of gay and lesbian clients but also in a wider socio-cultural context.
Key #9: help clients overcome internalised negative stereotypes or internalised oppression
- To some extent, we are all aware of this through our training, however possibly not to the extent that includes internalised oppression (?). Here too, in my opinion Pope rightly argues that this can significantly influence a client’s career decisions, career planning and therefore their career outcome (Pope, 2015, p. 306). In working with young people this can include victimisation through bullying, name calling etc… of which I have seen quite a few examples myself over the years. I can see this can also play a significant role in adult clients, especially those from different cultures who arrived here as refugees, as well as those who have internalised oppression because of, for instance, their sexual orientation, gender, etc… Pope argues that internalised oppression cannot be overcome easily (and I would add this is beyond the scope of career guidance or career counselling), but that it is important for us to recognise and appreciate the effect this can have on the client (Pope, 2015, p. 307) and their career planning or management.
Key #10: pay attention to coming out issues with clients for whom their cultural membership is not obvious
- Pope suggests that, if known by us, but even if unstated by the client, it would be a good idea to propose making a discussion around this, part of the intervention (Pope, 2015, p. 307). I respect Pope’s experience and academic research on working with, for instance, LGBT people, but I am very much conflicted on this. One example (no judgment intended) would be the habit of people putting their pronouns in their signature. However well meant this is, and however harmless if it’s left to the be decided freely by the individual, where it becomes something expected, it can force the individual to have to either lie or come out when not ready. Although this would be different in a career intervention, the principle is the same as the second option in that there is an expectation that the client then may feel they have to either lie or come out to us when they are not ready. Discussing this with a client who is not ready may make building rapport and trust very difficult. What do you think? How would you handle this?
- There is also the risk of us responding in a well meaning way to hearsay and completely getting it wrong, losing the client altogether. Discuss?
- At the same time I can see a role for us, as Pope suggests, in supporting the client with strategies for coming out in a career/professional/organisational context, but I feel that in the UK context at least, broaching this subject with a client who doesn’t indicate or mention the subject themselves could lead us too far. Is that your view as well? Or is what you think about this more in line with Pope?
Key #11: to overcome societal stereotyping as a limitation on occupational choice, use occupational role model and networking interventions
- Pope uses a range of stereotyping examples in his description of this key point, many of which arguably apply more to US society and which I hesitate to summarise here. The examples he states can be summarised less specifically in: individual from [country x] is stereotyped as working as a [Y]; or a gay individual is stereotyped in an occupation that is often stereotyped as ‘more suited for’ the opposite sex in mainstream society/some circles. Years ago I knew of a school that shall not be named (I’m sure/hope they have moved on from this!), that had a careers library with a ‘pink section’ and a ‘blue section’, which is another example of this. He makes the point that networking and occupational role modelling can be important for overcoming stereotyping and that these careers are seen as ‘safe’ career choices in which the individual can be more accepted but which at the same time limits their career choice (Pope, 2015, p. 308)
Key #12: maintain a supportive atmosphere in your office
- Pope suggests approaching this by adding subtle signs that you are prepared to work with clients from different cultures can send signals to clients that they are welcome (Pope, 2015, p. 308). Although I agree in principle, care needs to be taken and a thin line needs to be walked between giving the right level of signals and ‘overdoing’ this which may send signals to the opposite, potentially interpreted as cultural appropriation or virtue signalling.
- Have you adapted your interviewing space in the way suggested? If not, could you, or would you? If not, why not?
Key #13: provide positive social advocacy for your culturally diverse clients
- This can happen away from the client and as Pope states, concerns the external, social environment of the client (Pope, 2015, p. 308). This can be in a variety of context including, according to Pope, lobbying for inclusion, with employers, etc… but conversely also informing clients on employment, housing etc… He argues for going beyond ‘do no harm’ and towards a “positive advocacy” for their clients and their rights (Pope, 2015, p. 308).
(Further) Critique
I have included most of my critique of the different points above already, for you to use (or react against) in your CPD with your colleagues or manager, which I hope is useful. In addition to this, I have the following questions or points:
- In how far is Pope’s work grounded in US culture and how applicable is it to UK society?
- Is Pope’s model an argument against a ‘blanket’ approach or cookie cutter approach in career guidance? Or is it going too far in the other direction? Or is it just right?
- In my view, Pope’s model strengthens our focus on the client as a unique individual within a context, but in how far is his work aimed at some culturally diverse groups while still missing out on other discriminated against individuals? In other words, who is missing from his work, if anyone? (see Brown)
- How does this apply to career professionals from a culturally diverse background working with clients from the ‘majority culture’?
- How will this change your practice and thinking?
- Are you aware of your biases? How do you make sure you minimise their impact on your work?
References
Pope, M., 2015. 18. Career Counselling with Underserved Populations. In: K. M. a. A. D. Fabio, ed. Exploring New Horizons in Career Counselling. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 297-312.
Useful links
As stated before, I haven’t been able to find additional resources for you to explore that are related to Pope’s model, beyond the book above. I think it’s a shame as this is a very important topic to get to grips with and discuss.
Resources I did find to help you reflect: