'Australian doctoral employability: a systematic review of challenges and opportunities' by Li’An Chen, Inger Mewburn and Hanna Suominen in (2023) Higher Education Research and Development comments
Research educators, scholars, and employers often debate the nature and purpose of doctoral training. Should doctoral degrees exist only to make new knowledge and replenish the academic workforce or are they part of broader societal-enhancement and employment agendas? Or both? This study aimed to identify and analyse tensions in Australian employability discourse in the doctoral degree. We systematically reviewed 41 articles published in journals and conferences on Australian doctoral employability training from 2000 to 2022 and put them in context with the broader debate about doctoral employability in the so-called ‘grey literature’ of government reports and policy papers. Our findings indicated that stakeholders are all grappling with the difficulty of meeting diverse learning needs and there are contested understandings of the value of the doctoral degree beyond academia. At the same time, we found a relatively poor evidence base for many claims that outcomes of doctoral education are poor for both students and employers. This paper will be of interest to research educators seeking to implement new training programs and policy makers trying to craft new initiatives to connect doctoral education with industry.
The authors argue
The PhD was originally conceived as training for academia, but now graduates go on to a wide range of careers (Vitae; Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT)). Clearly PhD students need to be prepared for a range of career outcomes, but there is no consistent approach to embedding employability skills in the PhD curriculum. Taking a global view of the issues around doctoral education is useful for informing this ongoing debate (Sharmini & Spronken-Smith), but many international ‘solutions’ to local problems run the risk of missing out on characteristics specific to a national context (Thomson). For example, Australia has a massified and marketized education system (Marginson & Considine) with a larger proportion of international PhD candidates than most OECD countries (OECD,). The Australian doctoral education system includes Indigenous candidates (e.g., Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) and provides a wide range of priority schemes in all universities to support their success. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully examine local characteristics of doctoral education to make the Australian PhD curriculum fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. To this end, this paper provides a detailed exploration of the literature on the issue of employability within Australian doctoralFootnote1 education with a view to making recommendations for future scholarly research, education, and policymaking.
It is widely acknowledged that the Australian academic job market can no longer absorb all doctoral graduates. More than a decade ago, Neumann et al. noticed that only 23% of doctoral graduates in Australia were employed in research and teaching positions within academia. Both increasing casualization (Bosanquet et al) and heavy workload in academia (Bosanquet et al; McKinstry et al) seem to have ‘disillusioned’ many doctoral graduates. As a result, both governments and universities have been putting effort into making PhD graduates more employable beyond academia.
While lists of employability goals set out in policy papers get longer, a coherent pedagogy to achieve that aim remains elusive. Scholars have noticed how unstructured doctoral skills training and industry programs can be (e.g., Manathunga et al; Molla & Cuthbert; Platow,). It is hard – and perhaps pointless – to assign blame for this incoherence; pedagogical improvements only happen if we try new initiatives. But unless we have some idea of what has worked (or not) in the past, we cannot move forward with confidence. By examining the relevant available literature, this paper will provide valuable context for research educators attempting to design curriculum and policy makers looking to drive new initiatives.
Some of the current issues in PhD graduate employability can be traced back decades. It was not until 1948 that the first three PhDs were awarded in Australia (CBCS). Up to the second World War (WW2), Australia was an ‘importer’ of PhD talent, largely from the UK. After WW2, Australians looked to the USA for inspiration. PhD education was framed as a way to give countries a competitive edge (Dufty-Jones).
While the idea of PhD graduates as an economic benefit is deeply entrenched in Australia, initially the PhD did not have a direct relationship with industry. The PhD was seen as a way of building the academic workforce and capacity for both research and teaching (Kemp). This strategy seemed to pay off until the mid-1990s, when the Australian academic workforce became increasingly unable to absorb all its PhD graduates (Kiley; McCarthy & Wienk).
The uneven balance between demand and supply of PhDs was one of the drivers behind the policy statement by Kemp, which called for greater engagement with industry. This discussion paper on doctoral education suggested a range of policy changes to increase PhD completion rates, shorten completion time, and strengthen links with industry. Kemp pointed out the problem of skills inadequacy among Australian research graduates and the need to formalize training. The Research Training Scheme (RTS) was a direct outcome of this report, providing universities with direct government funding for research training for the first time. At the same time, domestic candidates had access to fee offsets and stipends to encourage participation. The design of the RTS aligned with ‘marketisation’ reforms of education in the late twentieth century (Marginson & Considine), providing a range of policy ‘carrots and sticks’; they have morphed over time into what is now called the Research Training Program (RTP) that provides, for instance, higher returns for universities to train a greater number of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) PhDs. Crucially, the RTS also punished universities for non-completions, by only paying in arrears, forcing universities to shoulder all the risk. As a result, a whole species of specialists in research education was spawned, some of whom work in universities and others consult and provide services. The government has continued to ‘tinker’ with this system, for example, in 2022 proposing a ‘bonus payment’ for candidates who complete an industry internship during candidature.
Although Australian politicians have made claims to developing a prosperous and expanding higher education sector via policies such as the RTP, Coates et al. argue that Australian doctoral education is not optimized yet, specifically with respect to catering to students and stakeholders’ needs. A range of government and commissioned reports (e.g., ACOLA; Australian Government Department of Education and Department of Industry; The Allen Consulting Group,) and empirical studies (e.g., Dufty-Jones; Guerin; Pitt) all raise different concerns. Stakeholders have constantly referred to efficiency, relevance, and employability problems related to doctoral programs in Australia (e.g., Hodgson et al; Molla & Cuthbert; Pitt & Mewburn). Employers, even academic employers, have claimed PhD-level graduates do not always meet their expectations (ACOLA; Pitt; The Allen Consulting Group). Younger PhD graduates have expressed apprehension about lacking industry experience, while older PhDs with industry experience report being stressed about employment precarity due to family, financial, and health-related issues (Spina et al). PhD graduates continue to be disillusioned with outcomes of the PhD in relation to their career (Guerin).
Doctoral education has become a site of anxiety within the academy, surrounded by what Molla and Cuthbert call a ‘PhD crisis discourse’. Positive stories about the PhD are not common in the Australian news media, and the ‘chatter’ in social media groups containing or pertaining to doctoral study is filled with ‘doom and gloom’ predictions and stories of mental health issues. Sydney Morning Herald’s opinion article authored by the PhD graduate Astore is a good example of PhDs feeling disheartened and ill-supported in Australia. Many current Australian institutional responses to ‘PhD crisis discourse’, such as industry programs and skill training courses, have been based on the assumption that industry employers’ expectations for doctoral employees were not met (Molla & Cuthbert), but has sufficient research really been done? The rest of this paper will outline a more detailed picture of this ‘crisis discourse’ around post-PhD employability through a systematic review of 41 included articles from 2000 to 2022. So far as we are able to ascertain, there has been no published literature survey of Australian doctoral employability. One of our aims is to find gaps and opportunities to expand knowledge.
