22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Doctoral Education and Future Employment: an Investigation through the lens of Identity
Furkan Uzan
The University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Uzan, Furkan
The role of doctoral education has been traditionally to prepare people for academic jobs. Yet, this has changed since the beginning of the 2000s due to the rapid increase in the number of PhD graduates and the growing influence of neoliberal economic policies. For instance, the number of graduates increased by 56% across the OECD countries between 2000-2012 (OECD, 2014), while the number of doctoral students doubled between the early 1990s to mid-2000s in the UK (Halse, 2007). But, as the number of positions in the academic labour market has not been growing to the same extent, its capacity has become no longer sufficient to absorb the majority of doctoral graduates (Cuthbert & Molla, 2015). Meanwhile, the growing influence of neoliberal economic policies, especially the knowledge-based economy discourse, has also encouraged the non-academic market orientation of doctoral graduates. Here, doctoral graduates are perceived as the “most-skilled labour force”, and their employment beyond the academic market -especially in the STEM disciplines, is promoted (Shin, Kehm & Jones, 2018; Molla & Cuthbert, 2019). Overall, the relationship between doctoral study and future employment in the academic market has been weakened.
Here, the efficiency of the traditional form of doctoral education in preparing graduates for a non-academic career has been loudly discussed and criticised. Studies argue that this model only prepares for an academic career and promotes a narrow set of skills that are only valued in the academic job market (Manathunga, Pitt & Critchley, 2009; Gokhberg, Shmatko & Auriol, 2016). Consequently, different policy responses have been suggested, which were later welcomed by many parts of the world. The loudest reform debates and actions have been made around the “skills” discourse. It is argued that doctoral study should be reconfigured by integrating skills students can utilise in a broad range of job settings after graduation (Solem et al., 2013; Acker & Haque, 2017). In addition to the skills policy, practice-oriented doctoral programmes that offer more collaboration with the non-academic labour market were introduced to produce functional knowledge that can be put into a practical context and collaborations with industry and the world of work (Hancock & Walsh, 2016; Jones, 2018).
Although these policy responses can be beneficial at some point to strengthen the link between doctoral study and future employment at the institutional level, the personal level relationship remains largely overlooked. It is known that doctoral graduates have more diverse career motivations and interests than before (Seo et al., 2020). Yet, there is limited knowledge on what shapes these diverse career motivations and interests, which is the area of investigation that has great potential to provide in-depth knowledge on doctoral students’ future career preparation.
Therefore, this study aims to answer:
1- How do doctoral students makes sense of embarking on a doctoral study for a future career?
2- How do doctoral students perceive the value and contributions of doctoral education for a future career?
Studies on individuals’ future career perspectives tend to assume a straight line between skills that individuals have or pursue and the best-matched positions for those skills in the labour market. Yet, this research investigates the issue more comprehensively through in-depth explanations of how they construct their future career goals and prospects. Here, a processual rather than possessional perspective, i.e., conditions and experiences that shape their future career aspirations rather than focusing solely on the skills and attributes they have (Holmes, 2013), fits better with research aims. Therefore, this research will utilise the notion of identity, specifically, the dynamic view of identity: ‘identity-in-action’ and ‘identity-under-construction,’ (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2018) as a theoretical lens.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study overall aims to shed light on how doctoral students construct their future career prospects and goals. Accordingly, the best-matched approach to generate knowledge can be interpretivist methodology, as it allows to “see things through the eyes of respondents and participants” (Gibbs, 2007, p.7) and to shed light on the subjective construction of identity formation (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2012; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013). Subjective construction here refers the constructivist view of social reality, which is accepted by interpretivist methodology (Neuman, 2014). In detail, the constructivist view deems social reality constructed through interactions and interpretation of things and shaped by personal experiences, and the environment/context individuals are living in (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
This study utilises qualitative semi-structured interviews with 30 doctoral students in a research-intensive UK university. Interviewees were employed by the answers to the prior survey, which was applied in the same setting for a larger project. The aim here was to employ interviewees with the soundest potential to provide rich and saturated data from various disciplines, classes and ethnicities. Accordingly, interview method was utilised to elucidate the experiences and perceptions that shape participants' perspectives and positioning to capture in-depth explanations. Here, interviews were initialised by asking more general questions, e.g., “how/why you decided to pursue a doctoral study", and were followed by more specific questions to dig into the experiences shaping their future career perspectives and positioning.
The thematic analysis approach was utilised to analyse data. This approach allows for sweeping across the data through interlinked steps of the procedure and enables to generate analytical themes through rigorously probing patterns of shared meaning or prevalent/key issues (Braun & Clarke, 2019). These analytical themes will potentially provide rich and thick explanations of how doctoral students' future career perspectives and positionings interplay with sociocultural and contextual factors. Here, the rationale and focus were combining semantic and latent themes to decouple the contextual factors that shape their future career perspectives, beyond what participants say.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study's initial results present that embarking on a doctoral education fits with doctoral students’ future career understandings in numerous ways. Three main forms of motivations were observed here: academic, intrinsic and utilitarian. Accordingly, the value and contributions of PhD differ by where individuals find the meaning and motivation to embark on. The contribution of the doctoral experience on human capital, e.g., academic and soft skills, is appreciated by each participant. But those who embarked on a PhD through intrinsic motivations loudly appreciate the acquisition of soft skills, i.e., skills they can utilise in non-university settings, while enhancing the academic skills aspect is valued most by those who started a PhD for academic motivations. Nonetheless, the career utility aspect and symbolic value of the degree are appreciated most by those who embarked on a PhD for utilising the benefits of the credential and diploma.
Overall, three types of identities that doctoral students negotiate during the degree for future careers emerge from the initial data; purists, activists and instrumentalists. Yet, each form of identity is not assigned to certain types of motivations and perceived values, as they are interchangeable. For instance, an activist may embark on a PhD by instrumentalist motivation, e.g., using the credibility of the degree to sell the outdoor education course to industry. But the underlying motivation here is making a real impact on the issue they are passionate about. Last, a certain extent of the relationship between identities and ethnicity can be seen. For instance, international students, specifically Asian students, mainly stand on the ground closer to instrumentalist identity.
ReferencesAcker, S. and Haque, E., 2017. Left Out in the Academic Field: Doctoral Graduates Deal with a Decade of Disappearing Jobs. cjhe 47, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043240ar
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th Edition. Routledge.
Cuthbert, D., Molla, T., 2015. PhD crisis discourse: a critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian ‘solutions.’ High Educ 69, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9760-y
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. 2008. Introducing Qualitative Methods: Qualitative methods in business research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi, 10, 9780857028044.
Gibbs, G. R. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data, Sage, London.
Gokhberg, L., Shmatko, N., Auriol, L. (Eds.), 2016. The Science and Technology Labor Force. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27210-8
Halse, C. 2007. Is the doctorate in crisis?. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 7, 321-337. Available at: http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30035159/halse-isthedoctorate-2007.pdf
Hancock, S., Walsh, E., 2016. Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 41, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915301
Holmes, L., 2013. Competing perspectives on graduate employability: possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education 38, 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.587140
Jones, M. 2018. ‘Contemporary trends in professional doctorates’, Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), pp. 814–825. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1438095.
Manathunga, C., Pitt, R. and Critchley, C. 2009. ‘Graduate attribute development and employment outcomes: tracking PhD graduates’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), pp. 91–103. doi:10.1080/02602930801955945
Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. 2019. Calibrating the PhD for Industry 4.0: global concerns, national agendas and Australian institutional responses. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 3(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2019.1637772
OECD. 2014. Education Indicators in Focus. Who are the doctorate holders and where do their qualifications lead them? Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/22267077.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. 2013. Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge
Seo, G., Ahn, J., Huang, W.-H., Makela, J.P., Yeo, H.T., 2020. Pursuing Careers Inside or Outside Academia? Factors Associated With Doctoral Students’ Career Decision Making. Journal of Career Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320907968
Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. 2018. Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society. Cham: Springer.
Solem, M., Kollasch, A., Lee, J., 2013. Career goals, pathways and competencies of geography graduate students in the USA. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 37, 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.729563
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Sticky Paths? Tracking and Institutional Stratification in Doctoral Degrees
Alice Dias Lopes1, Paul Wakeling2
1University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2University of York, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Dias Lopes, Alice
Few sociological studies of educational transition examine progression to terminal degrees – i.e. PhDs (Posselt & Grodsky, 2017). Higher education expansion has meant considerable growth in PhD numbers and entry rates. A PhD confers advantages in job quality and income (Yudkevich, 2020). Although not conferring the very highest incomes or wealth, PhDs - especially PhDs from the most prestigious universities (Wapman et al., 2022) - can unlock access to that slice of the cultural elite represented by academics, scientists etc.
Based on studies of earlier educational transitions, sociologists have pointed to declining effects of background on later transitions, especially for class, noting unobserved heterogeneity among educational ‘survivors’. Empirical evidence on this question for advanced degrees is mixed. Torche (2018) found some evidence that graduate education is an equaliser, whereas others find continued inequalities (In & Breen, 2022; Wakeling & Laurison, 2017).
Institutional stratification is a complicating factor. Many higher education systems exhibit formal or informal institutional strata, frequently hierarchical (Shavit et al., 2007). These correspond with structural inequalities in access, especially class and race/ethnicity; and differentiated outcomes for income, occupation etc. Institutional stratification has been little studied at the postgraduate degree level, although evidence suggests at least a persistence of tracked inequality (In & Breen, 2022; Mateos & Wakeling, 2022). There is also evidence of sticky pathways in some countries from first degree through PhD into faculty positions (Altbach et al., 2015).
Here, we examine the transition between UK-domiciled first-degree undergraduate degrees and PhDs. The UK makes an interesting case because it combines formal equality between universities, strong institutional stratification (Boliver, 2015; Wakeling & Savage, 2015) and a tradition of geographical mobility for higher education (Willetts, 2017). We measured higher education institutional stratification using a measurement of institutional prestige for the UK proposed by David et al. (2021) - ‘top-27’, pre-1992 and post-1992 institutions.
Our research aims to answer the following questions:
-
What are the patterns of institutional mobility from first-degree to postgraduate research degrees in the UK?
-
What is the association between patterns of institutional mobility and higher education stratification in the UK?
-
How do those patterns differ according to major structural inequalities, including class, race and gender?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe use HESA (Higher Education Statistical Agency) data to examine institutional mobility between first and postgraduate research degrees. The dataset comprises all UK-domiciled first-degree graduates, between 2012/13 and 2016/2017. It includes graduates' socioeconomic class, previous attainment, first-degree subject, higher education institution and ‘first destination’ six months after graduation. We consider only individuals entering a postgraduate research degree immediately after first-degree graduation (N = 26,900). For them, the HESA dataset also provides information on the type of postgraduate qualification and postgraduate higher education institution.
Considering the research on higher education inequalities in the UK (Boliver, 2015, Wakeling & Savage, 2015), we have also created a variable measuring the prestige of the higher education institutions. Following Davies et al. (2021), we divided the higher education institutions in the UK into (1)“Top-27” higher education institutions, comprising the 24 ‘Russell Group’ universities, plus the universities of St Andrews, Bath and Strathclyde (2) pre-1992: includes higher education institutions that were created before the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, except the ‘top-27’ institutions, (3) post-1992: institutions that were granted the university title after the 1992 Act. We also created indicator variables for institutions that were located in London and for institutions located in metropolitan areas in the UK to understand geographical mobility.
First, we use descriptive statistics to understand the different patterns of institutional mobility between first-degree and postgraduate degrees in the UK. Then, we use different logistic regression models to examine (1) the probability of changing institutions between first and postgraduate research degrees and individuals’ socioeconomic characteristics and type of higher education institution of the first degree and (2) the probability of pursuing a PhD in a ‘top-27’ institution and individuals’ socioeconomic characteristics and type of higher education institution of the first degree for individuals who were institutionally mobile.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur findings show most students do not move HEI, but post-1992 graduates are the least likely to do so. This is counterintuitive because there are many more PhD positions outside than inside post-1992 universities, suggesting post-1992 graduates are especially likely to ‘remain in lane’. ‘Top-27’ graduates were more likely to move institutions, but only a handful moved down the status hierarchy. By contrast, those in the pre-1992 sector were the least likely to remain in the same university, almost one-third ‘trading up’ to the ‘Top-27’.Our findings suggest that inequalities in PhD access are ‘baked in’ to ‘sticky’ UK institutional hierarchies.
Our logistic regression models show that women and graduates from Black and Asian minority ethnic groups were more likely to change institutions between levels. When analysing occupational class we see that first-degree graduates from intermediate, and routine/manual occupational backgrounds had a lower probability of institutional mobility than first-degree graduates with higher managerial, administrative and professional occupational backgrounds. Controlling for these other characteristics, we found first-degree graduates from pre-1992 institutions had a higher probability and graduates from post-1992 had a lower probability of being institutionally mobile for their PhDs. This finding endorses research on HE stratification in the UK by showing that first-degree graduates from ‘teaching-intensive’ institutions were more likely to pursue a PhD in the same institution. Last, the geographical distribution of universities might affect mobility: given the concentration of universities in London, it is easier to move institutions without moving residence than elsewhere in the UK.
When considering mobility to an ‘elite’ institution, institutional stratification seems to play a more prominent role. The model confirms that for institutionally mobile postgraduates only, first-degree graduates from pre-1992 and post-1992 institutions were less likely to pursue a PhD in the ‘Top-27’ when compared to first-degree graduates from the ‘Top-27’ institutions.
ReferencesAltbach, P. G., Yudkevich, M. & Rumbley, L. E. (eds.) (2015) Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education: Global Perspectives. Basingstoke: Routledge.
Boliver, V. (2015). Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK? Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1082905
Davies, J., Donnelly, M., & Sandoval-Hernandez, A. (2021). Geographies of elite higher education participation: An urban ‘escalator’ effect. British Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3711
In, J., & Breen, R. (2022). Social Origin and Access to Top Occupations among the Highest Educated in the United Kingdom. Sociology of Education, 00380407221128527. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407221128527
Mateos-González, J.L., Wakeling, P. Exploring socioeconomic inequalities and access to elite postgraduate education among English graduates. High Educ 83, 673–694 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00693-9
Pásztor, A., & Wakeling, P. (2018). All PhDs are equal but … Institutional and social stratification in access to the doctorate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(7), 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1434407
Posselt, J. R. & Grodsky, E. (2017) Graduate education and social stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 353 - 378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074324
Wakeling, P. & Laurison, D. (2017) Are postgraduate qualifications the ‘new frontier of social mobility’? British Journal of Sociology, 68(3), 533 - 555. https://doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12277
Wakeling, P., & Savage, M. (2015). Entry to Elite Positions and the Stratification of Higher Education in Britain. The Sociological Review, 63(2), 290–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12284
Wapman, K,. H., Zhang, S., Clauset, A. & Larremore, D. B. (2022) Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention. Nature, 610, 120 - 127. https://10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x
Willetts, D. (2017) A University Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P. G. & de Wit, H. (eds.) (2022) Trends and Issues in Doctoral Education: a Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Students’ Environmentalism and Materialism Differ According to Academic Major – Consequences for Educational Policy in HEIs
Ferenc Mónus
University of Debrecen, Hungary
Presenting Author: Mónus, Ferenc
Higher education institutions (HEIs) have central role on the road of societal transition toward a sustainable future. They are responsible for preparing current university students, i.e. future leaders, to cope with global environmental challenges, and by the means of their social capital they also play an active role in the current socio-economical processes. Hence they actively shape current and future, as well as regional and national sustainability related innovations and policies (Radinger-Peer & Pflitsch 2017). One of the main driver for sustainability societal transitions in the hand of HEIs is sustainability related education (ESD) including formation of views, attitudes, knowledge and practices. However, the potential of ESD is not sufficiently resorted in many higher education institutions due to several barriers that are delaying sustainability transition in HEIs (Lozano et al. 2013, Blanco-Portela et al. 2017). During the integration of ESD to universities and to their curricula, it would be crucial to know on the attitudes and expectations of students in different study majors. Unfortunately, we have very limited knowledge on how study major are related to students’ environmental concerns, attitudes, values and pro-environmental behaviours (altogether environmentalism hereafter).
In the few study that investigated links between academic major and environmentalism researches used only a few categories of study majors and were based only on a few HEIs (e.g. Lang 2011, Zuk & Zuk 2017, Chuvieco et al. 2018, Hansmann et al. 2020). Moreover, many of these studies used only a limited number of measures for assessing environmentalism. In this study, using a large central European sample (N=7174) from more than 15 HEIs we investigated differences of students’ environmentalism using 8 different well established measures and 8 additional questions in order to understand aspects of environmentalism (see Methods).
Main Research Questions:
What pattern concerning environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) and some related measures (e.g. materialism, willingness to sacrifice, priority views for economic growth) can be found among students learning different academic majors? Are these patterns markedly different if we investigate different institutions? How measures of environmentalism change from first to final grade students according to different study majors?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAn anonymous online questionnaire (based on the ethical permission 2020-129 of the Hungarian United Ethical Review Committee for Research in Psychology) was administered to Hungarian university students during 2020. Universities and/or faculties were reached based on availability, students completed the survey on a voluntary basis. The questionnaire included four measures for environmental attitudes (utilization, preservation, willingness to sacrifice, appreciation of nature; according to Bogner 2018, and Mónus 2021), one for values (materialism; Kasser 2005), two different measures for pro-environmental behaviour (adapted based on Mónus 2021), and one for assessing the extent of understanding biodiversity (adapted from Johnson & Manoli 2008). Other self-developed questions assessed students’ views on prioritizing economic growth, techno-optimistic view on environmental issues, perceived future threats, purchase motivation, link of diseases and lifestyle, and several socio-economic background variables. Based on study major of students 14 categories were set up. Data were analysed using simple linear models (in R statistical and computing environment).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll measures of environmentalism significantly differ among student categories by their study major. According to multiple measures, environmentalism seems to be consistently high in majors related to applied environmental sciences, science teachers, agricultural, and biological sciences, and consistently low in majors related to informatics and law. Elementary pre-service teachers and students in traditional science and arts academic majors achieved high scores only on some scales, while environmental conscious scores of students in sport and health sciences were quite ambiguous. Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) seems to be have low level in students learning traditional arts, engineering, and technical majors independently of their environmental attitudes. Techno-optimism was reported to be the more pronounced by students learning traditional sciences, informatics, and technical majors. Further analyses are in progress in order to investigate patterns among different institutes and among students of different grade.
Results confirmed that students’ environmentalism differ considerably according to their study major. However, different measures revealed quite different pattern among student categories. For instance, applying PEBs in the everyday life shows very different pattern from that we can expect based solely on the attitudes. Based on our results we encourage universities to increase their efforts in sustainability related education, especially in the following disciplines: agricultural studies, informatics, economics/finance/marketing, law, and engineering. Educational staff should work to establish sustainability related specific knowledge and to enhance its transmission in the field of every academic disciplines (Worldwatch Institute 2017), that would also contribute to enhance pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour in students.
ReferencesBlanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Eeducation Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563-578.
Bogner, F. X. (2018). Environmental values (2-MEV) and appreciation of nature. Sustainability, 10(2), 350.
Chuvieco, E., Burgui-Burgui, M., Da Silva, E. V., Hussein, K., & Alkaabi, K. (2018). Factors affecting environmental sustainability habits of university students: Intercomparison analysis in three countries (Spain, Brazil and UAE). Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1372-1380.
Hansmann, R., Laurenti, R., Mehdi, T., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison of university students and staff from diverse faculties at a Swiss University. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 121864.
Johnson, B., & Manoli, C.C. (2008). Using Bogner and Wiseman’s Model of Ecological Values to measure the impact of an earth education programme on children’s environmental perceptions. Environmental Education Research, 14, 115–127.
Kasser, T. (2005). Frugality, generosity and materialism in children and adolescents. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 357–374). New York: Springer Science.
Lang, K. B. (2011). The relationship between academic major and environmentalism among college students: Is it mediated by the effects of gender, political ideology and financial security? The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 203-215.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10-19.
Mónus, F. (2021). Environmental perceptions and pro-environmental behavior–comparing different measuring approaches. Environmental Education Research, 27(1), 132-156.
Radinger-Peer, V., & Pflitsch, G. (2017). The role of higher education institutions in regional transition paths towards sustainability. Review of Regional Research, 37(2), 161-187.
Worldwatch Institute (2017): EarthEd – Rethinking Education on a Changing Planet, State of the World 2017. Island Press.
Żuk, P., & Żuk, P. (2018). Environmental awareness and higher education: Differences in knowledge and the approach to ecology between students of technical sciences and the humanities in Poland. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 17(2), 150-160.
|
