The Issue of Research Graduate Employability in Australia: An Analysis of the Policy Framing (1999–2013) (Tebeje Molla & Denise Cuthbert)

The Issue of Research Graduate Employability in Australia: An Analysis of the Policy Framing (1999-2013)

Tebeje Molla [email protected]

Centre for Research in Educational Futures and Innovation, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Melbourne, VIC, 3125 Australia

Denise Cuthbert

School of Graduate Research, RMIT, University, Melbourne, VIC, 3001 Australia

This is the author’s version. This work was later published as:

Copyright: Springer. The final publication is available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13384-015-0171-6

ABSTRACT: The prevalent knowledge economy discourse has direct implications for higher education policies and practices. It is expected that the higher education sector supports national economic competitiveness mainly through promoting scientific research, supporting technological transfer and innovation, and producing ‘knowledge workers’ such as higher degree by research (HDR) graduates. However in the context of changing work requirements and fast paced technological progress, the ‘skills gap’ between the labour market needs and the actual attributes of graduates has emerged as a tangible concern. This paper explores the issue of research graduate employability in Australia. Drawing on critical frame analysis, the paper particularly problematizes the way research graduate employability has been framed in relevant policy texts, and shows what issues are excluded from the policy agenda and why. By way of demonstrating exclusions from the current debate on doctoral graduates’ skills and employability, we briefly report on new data on the level of industry-engagement of research students at one large Australian university to argue that assumptions about the need to ‘fix’ the skills deficit of graduates have excluded from view high levels of industry engagement.

Keywords: Australia, critical frame analysis, research graduate employability, knowledge economy.

Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2015). The Issue of Research Graduate Employability in Australia: An Analysis of the Policy Framing (1999-2013). The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(2), 237-256.

1

Introduction

With the emergence of knowledge economy optimism and the associated global

economic competition, job roles have become more demanding (Schomburg & Teichler,

2006) and call for highly skilled and adaptable workers. Related to this, higher education

(HE) institution are expected to support national economic growth plans and strategies

through producing competent labour force equipped with the knowledge, skills and

creativity to contribute to the new economic order. At the same time, in the context of

changing work requirements and rapid technological progress, the ‘skills gap’ between

the labour market needs and the actual attributes of graduates seems to be a valid

concern. In a study on the relationship between HE qualification and employment,

Harvey (2000) argues that with the organizational changes and increased number of

graduates, a university degree is no longer “a passport into employment” (p.7). Harvey

adds: “a degree is no guarantee of a job, let alone a career, and should only be seen as a

reaching ‘first-base’ in the requirement process.”

In the last two decades, against the backdrop of such changes as the prevalence of the

knowledge economy imaginary and shifts in career destinations of research graduates,

the Australian Government has raised questions about efficiency, quality and relevance

of research training programs. In this paper, we review selected policy documents with

the aim of mapping the framing of perceived or real problems associated with the

employability of research graduates. We are particularly interested in showing how the

policy actors frame the issue of research graduate employability in Australia and the

extent to which the framing shapes changes in graduate research training programs. In

this study, research graduates refers to people with HDR qualifications – Research

Masters and PhDs.

The remaining part of the paper is organised in five sections. In what follows, we present

an overview of the methodology we draw on for the study. In the second section, we

briefly outline the knowledge economy imaginary and its implications for research

training. In the third section, we show how the issues of skills gap and skills relevance

have been represented in the policies and how that representation led to calls for pro-

skills research training in Australian universities. In the fourth section, we use empirical

evidence to show how the current levels of industry engagement of research students

2

are not captured by the current framing of skills gap and skills relevance. Finally, by way

of conclusion, we highlight major exclusions in the current framing.

Methodology

Policy is a discursive practice (Ball, 2005) that legitimatizes the dominant social order

in society through (re)producing power relations and masking contradictions. As such,

there is no a value-free discourse in policy debates and narratives. As Fairclough (2001:

126) rightly notes, “discourse is ideological in so far as it contributes to sustaining

particular relations of power and domination”. Jäger (2001, p.38) explains how

discourse effects reality:

Discourses exercise power as they transport knowledge on which the collective and individual consciousness feeds. This emerging knowledge is the basis of individual and collective action and the formative action that shapes reality.

In a policy process, a persuasive and coherent narrative is essential to effectively

communicate with various stakeholders (e.g. electorates) and get a wider consensus,

and to mobilise the necessary resources. A discursive construction of meaning is made

possible through the use of frames that function as interpretation schemes of reality.

Sociologist Erving Goffman (1974) first used the concept of frame to refer to the thinking

tool individuals use to make-sense of their daily interactions and experiences. He

applied the concept to analyse how individuals signify social events by assigning specific

meanings rather than mere descriptions. George Lakoff underscores political values of

frames – for example, their role in representing contentious social issues in a public

debate:

Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions. In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. (2004, p.xv)

If policy is ‘an authoritative allocation of values’ as David Easton (1953) famously

argues, frames are discursive devices that indicate what values are allocated and whose

interests are served by that particular allocation. Verloo (2004, p.6) usefully defines a

policy frame as “an organising principle that transforms fragmentary or incidental

information into a structured and meaningful policy problem, in which a solution is

implicitly or explicitly enclosed.” To put it differently, policy frames indicate which social

3

facts are signified as public issues that deserve action. They represent ‘diagnostic and

prescriptive’ accounts in policy – they tell us “what needs fixing and how it might be

fixed” (Rein & Schön, 1996, p.89). Policy frames are activated through the use of catch

phrases, metaphors, and exemplars.

In examining the representation of the issue of research graduate employability in

Australia, we draw on critical frame analysis (Bacchi, 2009; Rein & Schön, 1996; Verloo

& Lombardo, 2007). Critical frame analysis (CFA) assumes that policy problems are

constructed (i.e. a problem exists only when it is defined to be addressed) (Bacchi, 2009;

Gale, 1994). Informed by a critical theory perspective, CFA assumes that in the social

world meaning cannot be measured but has to be understood through an interpretive

stance. That is, at its ontological basis is a constructivist view of the social world in which

“meanings do not automatically or naturally attach themselves to the objects, events, or

experiences we encounter, but often arise, instead, through interactively based

interpretive processes” (Snow, 2004, p.384). The ‘critical’ dimension of CFA

underscores power relations (e.g. how policy issues arise and who sets the agenda),

ideological orientations informing the process, and social justice implications and

consequences of the policy in question. Centring “both on the claim for resources and a

symbolic contest about meaning” in a policy narrative (Rein & Schön, 1996, p.93), frame

analysis, as one aspect of critical discourse analysis, aims to detect silences, multiplicity

of intentions and latent inconsistencies.

In a policy text, frames represent “underlying structures of beliefs, perceptions and

appreciation” (Fischer, 2003, p.144); and as such the central aim of CFA is examining

what gives a policy text “its appearance of coherence, persuasiveness, and obviousness”

(Rein & Schön, 1996, p.90). For instance, in the present neoliberal political economy,

marketization of social services, including education, is construed as an avoidable reality

– as “the simple ‘fact of life’ which we must respond to” (Fairclough, 2001, p.129). The

prevalence of ‘human capital’ (Schultz, 1960, 1961; Becker, 1993 [1964]) and

‘knowledge economy’ (OECD, 1996, World Bank, 1999) as discursive constructs in

policy narratives highlight the prioritization of economic rationality over social goals of

equity and inclusivity in education. Governments’ ideological dispositions towards

‘economic optimization of knowledge’ meant that universities are increasingly expected

to efficiently produce ‘job-ready graduates’ who support national economic

4

competitiveness and productivity projects and generate “academic capitalism through

research” (Thornton, 2014, p.3). Relatedly, the increased emphasis on the marketability

of educational outcomes has a significant implication for graduate research training

programs. The employability framing tends to assess quality of a research degree in

terms generic skills required in the labour market – it excludes non-economic returns

and benefits of graduate research training.

Hence the central objective of a critical frame analyst is to uncover assumptions

underpinning specific policy framings, and engage in reflection, primarily with the aim

of creating a condition for reframing the issue. In essence, CFA seeks to produce an

explanatory critique in the form of both negative critique (a diagnosis of the problem)

and positive critique (a reimagining of an alternative framing of the problem)

(Fairclough, 2001).

We began the data collection and analysis process by a careful selection of `typical texts’

(Meyer, 2001) that represent the policy debate on research graduate employability in

the last fifteen years. Accordingly, the qualitative data analysed for this paper has been

generated from three major sources: Government policy statements and discussion

papers (Kemp, 1999a, 1999b, Government of Australia, 2011), Commissioned reports

on employer needs for research skills (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010; BHERT, 2012)

and documents generated by organisations representing Australian universities (Group

of Eight, 2013a; Universities Australia, 2013). Hence the documents considered here are

either policy statements directly proposed by the Government or reports that served as

policy discussion papers. The period covered in this policy analysis encompasses the

introduction of the Research Training Scheme (RTS), a performance-based research and

research training financing scheme (1999/2001) to the introduction of the first ‘pro-

skills PhD’ programs in Australian universities (2013).

After we selected the ‘typical texts’, we processed them – we thoroughly read relevant

sections of the documents and identified specific excerpts for a closer analysis. More

specifically, in examining the way research graduate employability has been

represented as a policy issue in Australia, we focused on ‘framing devices’ (which show

what is the problem framed to be), and ‘reasoning devices’ (which suggest what should

be done to address the issue) (Gale 1994; Rein & Schön, 1996). In the interpretation of

the data, we foregrounded topics, themes and contents that represent a particular

5

discourse rather than linguistic categories of the policy texts. We problematized the

texts with the aim of unmasking contradictions, inconsistencies, issue-omission, and

assumptions regarding research graduate employability in Australia. Drawing on a

closer analysis of the ‘issue frames’ in the texts, we constructed two themes as key

findings. Those are ‘skills gap’ and ‘skills relevance’. We also include our reflections,

based on our identification of omissions and contradictions, on alternative possibilities

of representing the issue of research graduate employability and their implications for

HDR training programs, policies and practices.

The Knowledge Economy Imaginary and Employability

Since the mid-1990s, the knowledge economy discourse has become a hegemonic

economic imaginary informing global and national policy narratives. According to social

theorist Bob Jessop, what is being imagined in a knowledge economy imaginary is the

role of knowledge and skills, intellectual property, national systems of innovation,

knowledge transfer and knowledge management as key factors of economic

productivity and competitiveness (Jessop, 2008). Jessop argues: “Imagined economies

are discursively constituted and materially reproduced on many sites and scales, in

different spatio-temporal contexts, and over various spatio-temporal horizons” (2008,

p.17).

A knowledge economy is an economy that is characterised by high level of technological

advance, rising productivity and efficiency and prevalence of knowledge-based services

(Brinkley, 2006). As Houghton and Sheehan (2000) noted, in Australia and

internationally, the knowledge economy emerged from the dynamics of two interrelated

forces: “the rise in knowledge intensity of economic activities, and the increasing

globalisation of economic affairs” (p.2). The global economic order, characterised by

innovation, complexity and flexibility, requires a labour force with high levels of

education and training as well as lifelong learning opportunities.

The knowledge economy imaginary draws on human capital theory in the sense that

education is construed as a pillar of sustainable economic growth and development. In

the age of the knowledge economy, human capital theory is linked “to the requirements

of the global economy and to the competitive advantage of individuals, corporations,

and nations within the transnational context” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p.18). Education

6

and training can make an individual worker more productive, and that in the aggregate,

more productive and innovative workers can stimulate and bring about sustainable

economic development. The key assumption is that:

A nation’s human capital endowment – the skills and capacities that reside in people and that are put to productive use – can be a more important determinant of its long-term economic success than virtually any other resource. This resource must be invested in and leveraged efficiently to generate returns, for the individuals involved as well as an economy as a whole. (Zahidi, 2014, p.92)

Since the early 1960s, prominent economists underscored that education

increases individual’s job performance and national economic productivity

(Becker, 1993 [1964]; Schultz, 1960, 1961). After over half a century, with the

prevalence of the knowledge economy imaginary, the human capital theory has

remained a pervasive policy pillar that has made education an economic policy. It

has now become self-evident that the alarmingly rising social inequality has been

partly resulted from inequality in knowledge and skills. As The Economist puts it:

“Intellectual capital drives the knowledge economy, so those who have lots of it get

a fat slice of the pie.”1

The prevalence of the knowledge-based economy imaginary has direct implications for

the renewed interest in research graduate employability. Notably, job roles have

become more demanding (Schomburg & Teichler, 2006). In the context of changing

work requirements, the ‘skills gap’ between labour market needs and the actual

attributes of graduates emerges as concern. Hence HE institutions are expected to

support national economic growth plans and strategies through producing a competent

labour force equipped with relevant knowledge, skills and creativity. Particularly in

advanced economies, increased concerns about national competitiveness in the global

economy and the fast pace of technological advancement along with the associated

uncertainty of employers regarding future requirements have necessitated a constant

inspection of the relevance of research graduate programs. One of the key foci of the

1 The Economist. (24 Jan. 2015). Education and class: America’s new aristocracy. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21640331-importance-intellectual-capital-grows-privilege-has-become-increasingly

7

inspection and reform is the issue of employability. In what follows, we show how

research graduate employability has been framed in selected policy texts in Australia.

Research Graduate Employability in Australia: The Policy Framing

A person’s employability is expressed in his or her ability to gain and maintain a job

while employment is an outcome of being on the job (Yorke, 2006). Broadly viewed,

research graduate employability refers to graduates’ skills and attributes, and their

capacity to translate them into high functionality in a range of employment situations.

The ability of the graduate to obtain employment in a satisfying job appropriate to his

or her level of education is a function of multiple factors, including competence in

subject speciality, possession of transferable employability skills, and labour market

situations. The employability discourse is predicated partly on the individual graduate’s

transferable skills related to being able to work well with others, think critically and

creatively, communicate effectively, understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses,

know how to present oneself and access useful opportunities and plan one’s career

carefully.

Examining the policy framing of employability also enables to identify the owners of the

agenda. In many OECD countries, the employability agenda has been imposed on HE

institutions by national governments (Yorke, 2006). As is evident in the case of Australia,

not only did governments impose the agenda but also prescribed the specific responses

of HE institutions. At present, the prescription focuses on generic skills development.

The ‘issue-frames’ analysis of selected policy texts shows that in Australia problems

related to research graduate employability are highlighted in terms of ‘skills gap’ and

‘skill relevance’ and subsequent calls for pro-skills research training. These themes are

discussed below in turn.

Skills Gap

A persistent policy narrative about research graduates in Australia is the ‘skills gap’

account of employability. In 1999, the Government’s Discussion Paper on research

training indicated high level of dissatisfaction among employers regarding the skills and

capabilities of research graduates (Kemp, 1999b).

The Discussion Paper suggested that restructuring research training in Australian

universities should aim to “broaden the base of the research training experience,

8

strengthen the creativity, communication and problem-solving skills of graduates, and

provide training opportunities and experience outside of the academic environment”

(Kemp, 1999b, p.11). As we discuss further below, this last comment uncritically

assumes a bifurcation between the “academic environment’ and the real world of

industry and commerce which warrants some scrutiny.

In the subsequent policy statement, Knowledge and Innovation, the Government of

Australia concluded: “research degree graduates are often inadequately prepared for

employment” (Kemp, 1999a, p.2). The statement specifically pointed out the root cause

of the problem of ‘skills inadequacy’:

[…] research programmes that are too narrow, too specialised and too theoretical leading to graduates whose communication, interpersonal, and leadership skills require further development. (Kemp, 1999a, p.17, emphasis added)

In response to these concerns, especially to address reported employer dissatisfaction

with the quality and relevance of research training, the policy statement indicated that

research students needed to gain experience in appropriate research and employment

environments, including industry. Furthermore, the Government proposed that higher

education institutions report (in the form of a Research and Research Training

Management Plan) on key elements of research training as part of their funding

arrangements. Among the core elements that institutions were requested to report were

“graduate outcomes both in terms of attributes and employment” (Kemp, 1999a, p. 26).

In the same vein, the Bradley Review found that one of the challenges of the Australian

HE system was “[m]eeting the needs of the labour market and industry for high level

skills” (Bradley et al., 2008).

Nearly a decade since the implementation of performance-based research and research

training funding system under the Research Training Scheme2 in 2001 (following the

Knowledge and Innovation policy statement), the Department of Innovation, Industry

Science and Research (DIISR) commissioned research to investigate employer demand

for researchers in Australia. In their report, The Allen Consulting Group (2010) found

that the majority of newly employed researchers excelled in technical skills, however

employers highlighted gaps in generic skills. Among the key ‘soft skills’ that employers

2 See https://education.gov.au/research-training-scheme

9

noted as missing in research graduates were “communication, planning and organising,

and teamwork” (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010, p.viii). On the basis of these findings,

The Allen Consulting Group (2010) underscored that promoting employability of

research graduates requires restructuring research training programs; and proposed:

A ‘T skills’ approach may be applicable to describe the combination of skills a researcher requires for the future – deep, narrow and discipline focused skills and broad soft or life skills. (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010, p.viii)

A year later in its Research Workforce Strategy, the Australian Government (2011) drew

partly on the above findings to highlight the skills gap in research graduates and to

stress the need for training researchers that meet the needs of ‘the modern workplace’.

The Business/Higher Education Round Table (BHERT, 2012) shows that key skills

valued by the employers of research graduates in Australia include analytical skills,

problem solving, theoretical knowledge and team work. However, the report also

confirm that employers noted some transferable skills (including communication) are

lacking in research graduates (BHERT, 2012). The Business/Higher Education Round

Table emphasised the importance of aligning research training with industry needs:

The question often asked by employers is ‘what is the employee going to offer the client that is profitable to the company?’ The commercial imperative of private sector employers means that HDR graduates must be able to offer a service orientation to the clients. Therefore, understanding the value proposition of the commercial application of research is essential for HDR graduates. The broader the skill set of the HDR graduate and more flexible they are, the more useful employee they are and the better the outcome for the company. (BHERT, 2012, p.7)

In a recent Discussion Paper, The Changing PhD, the Group of Eight (2013a)

acknowledged that, with increased diversity of employment destinations of PhD

graduates, there has been a growing concern regarding the adequacy of the doctorate in

areas of communication skills, teamwork and project management attributes. The

Group of Eight further noted:

the apparent employment destinations of PhD graduates suggest that for many the generic skills that they acquire, often implicitly through some kind of osmosis, may be more important in future employment terms than the discipline specific knowledge and techniques that are usually the focus of PhD education. (Group of Eight, 2013a, p.26)

10

The paper approaches the problem of under/unemployment of PhD graduates from two

perspectives: the quantitative perspective relating to labour market supply/demand,

and qualitative dimension related to the possession by graduates of the generic

transferable skills so valued by industry. Table 1 shows how different agents in Australia

define the transferable employability skills that research graduates need to possess.

Naming generic skills of research graduates is not limited to the Australian policy arena.

A cross-national study of valued attributes of researchers in selected OECD countries

(namely, France, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Switzerland,

Japan and the United States) found that newly recruited young researchers are expected

to have the following competences: scientific knowledge, ability to formulate a research

issue, capacity for analysis and grasp of sophisticated IT tools, creativity, open-minded

approach, motivation/involvement, adaptability, ability to work in a team,

communication skills, language skills, business culture and management skills, and

awareness of the pertinence of the research and its impact on the environment

(APEC/DELOITTE, 2010, p. 7).

Skills Relevance

The framing of skills relevance is slightly different from the skills gap question discussed

above, but the two are not mutually exclusive. While the former specifically refers to

skills for non-academic contexts, the latter is about a mismatch between graduate skills

and work requirements in general. The skills relevance question is linked with the

emerging ‘knowledge-based jobs’ and the associated diversity of employment

destinations of research graduates (Bradley et al., 2008; DIISR, 2011; Group of Eight,

2013b; Kemp, 1999a, 1999b; The Allen Consulting Group, 2010).

The skills relevance discourse is underpinned by two assumptions. First, the expansion

of research-intensive (knowledge-based) jobs means that now research graduates have

wider employment opportunities outside academia accompanied by the expectation

that research will have direct impact on the economy. This then leads to the expectation

that graduates will possess the necessary set of skills to successfully function in the

emerging ‘modern workplace’. Second, with the mass production of doctoral graduates

in Australia, the expectation of an academic career trajectory is unsustainable; and there

is a need for ‘recognising the diversity of employment trajectories’ of research graduates.

11

Table 1. Transferable Skills of Research Graduates as Listed by Different Agents in Australia

Notes Source: Cuthbert and Molla (2015, p.43) a The Australian Chamber of Industry and Commerce and Business Council of Australia b Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research c Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Australia d The Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies, Australia e In a recent discussion paper on the PhD, the Group of Eight lists these generic skills as essential part of attributes of doctoral graduates

Agents

ACIC&BCAa

(2002) The Allen Consulting Group (2010)

DIISRb (2011a)

DIISRTEc (2012)

DDOGSd (2012)

Group of Eighte (2013)

Transferable/ Generic skills sets

• communication • teamwork • problem-solving • initiative and enterprise • planning and organising • self-management • learning • technology

• communication • planning and

organising • initiative taking and

enterprise • commercial acumen • team work • technology • self-management • learning

• problem solving • communication • self-management • teamwork • initiative and

enterprise

• communication • teamwork • project

management • commercialisation

• Oral and written communication skills

• Critical thinking • Research ethics and

responsible research conduct • Research tools • Research methodologies • Entrepreneurship including

proposal writing • Interpersonal skills • Time management, project

management, team work and collaboration

• Career planning

• Effective communication skills • Teamwork skills • Leadership and assertiveness skills • Problem solving skills • Project management skills • Understanding of financial management • Resilience and ability to think

ahead, to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty, and preparedness to take action to achieve results

• Career planning skills • General IT skills

12

In Australia, there has been a coherent policy narrative about the needs and expectations

of the knowledge economy regarding research graduate skill sets. In the Knowledge and

Innovation paper, the Government claimed that research training and knowledge creation

are crucial for success in the global knowledge economy:

Competition is strengthening on a global basis and Australia’s competitiveness and attractiveness to investors is increasingly determined by our relative knowledge capabilities. Research—as a key source of knowledge and new ideas—is central to success in the global knowledge economy. (Kemp, 1999a, p.1)

Accordingly, the proposed reform of research training in Australian universities considers

public funding of research as an investment to “facilitate growth in knowledge-based jobs”

(Kemp 1999a, p.5). The Government further noted:

It is important also to recognise the increasing diversity of employment destinations of postgraduate research students, well beyond the traditional destination of a career in academia or in a professional research organisation. […] increasing proportions of graduating students have sought employment in non-traditional fields— especially in industry and the public sector. (Kemp, 1999b, p.11, emphasis added)

Situated within the broad knowledge economy discourse, in its report on research

graduate employability, The Allen Consulting Group (2010) noted: “the knowledge

economy also requires ‘new age’ PhD graduates with a requisite skill profile, particularly

for researchers working in industry.’ (p.5). The Report underscored: “a mismatch […]

between the skills of graduates and postgraduates, and the skills required by employers.”

(The Allan Consulting Group, 2010, p.2). One of the pertinent findings of the study was that

current doctoral education does not meet the needs of the workplace:

[…] current PhD training programs do not necessarily provide individuals with the skills that are necessary to meet these demands. In particular, it has been suggested that traditional training programs often do not provide candidates with the necessary skills to effectively manage external stakeholders and deliver outcomes for a broad range of research users. (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010, p.76)

In Australia, the largest research workforce employers are still the HE sector and research

institutions (BHERT, 2012). However, the trend is changing. In 2008, only 28% of PhD

graduates worked in HE while the rest was absorbed by public and private industry outside

academia (Group of Eight, 2013a). Hence it is understandable that the Government has

13

focused on ensuring the relevance of skills acquired during research training to the broad

socio-economic needs of the nation.

In the Changing PhD Discussion Paper, the Group of Eight (2013a) acknowledges increased

concerns about the PhD and PhD graduates. They noted that this distress partly emerges

from changing research graduate employment destinations and work requirements:

One issue contributing to this situation may be the extent to which PhD training has responded (or failed to respond) to the changed context in which it often takes place. (Group of Eight, 2013a, p.14)

In other words, there is a “mismatch between the skills developed during PhD training and

needs of employers” (Group of Eight, 2013a, p.37). The Group further highlighted the

problem associated with PhD graduates with lack of attributes required in the workplace.

Closely related to the demand/supply issues there are qualitative concerns that the attributes that doctoral students develop during their PhD training are inadequate because they reduce the employability of PhD graduates or do not match the expectations that potential employers have about the attributes that such graduates should possess. These concerns can relate even to the research expertise of doctoral graduates, reflecting in part the changing nature of research and the different management processes and management expectations of researchers in academia and industry. (p.34, emphasis added)

In the Changing PhD, the Group of Eight (2013a) argued that PhD graduates in Australia

have faced a long term under/unemployment. In order to overcome the problem, they

argue, one should start with defining the purposes of the PhD. As a result, there have been

calls for changes in research training programs. However, it is noteworthy that, as can be

inferred from Table 2 below, the issue of research graduate unemployability in Australia

seems to be more of an imagined rather than real problem. The data also implies that the

diversity of research graduate career destinations might have been overstated in the policy

framing. In 2012, Australia’s about 93% employment rate of doctorate holders was well

above the OECD average (OECD, 2014).

14

Table 2. Research Graduate* Career Destinations (2009-2012)

Source: Graduate Careers Australia (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Notes *Research graduate includes people with qualifications of Masters by Research and PhD degrees **This refers to the group of graduates who entered the full time labour force after graduation, and includes those both in and seeking for full-time employment *** Possibly due to rounding, the percentage adds up to 98.2, not 100

Year

Total Number of Research Graduates Surveyed**

Number of Research Graduates Available for Full-time Employment

Number of Research Graduates in Full-time Employment

Employment by Sector (%)

Government

Private (incl. Industry/business)

Education (both private & public)

Health

Other

2009 3638 2699 (74.2%) 2307 (85.5%) 8.1 26.6 47.1 9.1 9.1 2010 3417 2575 (75.4%) 2186 (84.9%) 8.1 25.8 46.1 9.1 9.1*** 2011 3386 2513 (74.2%) 2093 (83.3%) 7.3 25.5 49.0 10.8 9.1*** 2012 3827 2857 (74.7%) 2362 (82.7%) 8.2 24.9 49.1 10.8 7.0

15

Toward Pro-skills Research Training

As framed by the discourses on the PhD that have emerged in Australia over the

15 years, the central issue is that although the demand for research workforce has

grown outside the academia, research training programs are still too narrowly

aligned within disciplinary specializations. This, it is claimed, has in turn

hampered employment opportunities of research graduates. There seems to be a

wider policy consensus that, if left unaddressed, these problems related with skills

gap and skills relevance may lead to high levels of research graduate

unemployability and affect the nation’s competitiveness in the global knowledge

economy. This widely shared concern, in turn, has led to a series of calls, both from

the public and private sector for the restructuring of research training programs

in Australian universities.

As discussed above, versions of this narrative can be traced at least as far back as

Kemp’s Discussion Paper (1999b) with its framing of the lack of breadth of

research training in Australian universities as a major policy concern. Kemp called

for “a greater focus on the broader range of skills needed by graduates to operate

successfully in an increasingly diverse range of employment destinations” (Kemp,

1999b, p.32). However, in practice, the policy statement, Knowledge and

Innovation, did not directly address the issues of skills gap and relevance.

The 2010 review of research employer demands addressed the problem of skills

gap more directly and recommended reforms including “making the delivery of

professional development training an obligatory condition for PhD funding” (The

Allen Group, 2010, p. vii). In The Research Workforce Strategy, the Australian

Government (DIISR, 2011) echoed the concerns of research employers

documented in the above report: “Graduates need not only academic skills, but a

wide range of generic competencies to operate effectively in these diverse

contexts” (p.22).

Most of the government policy statements and discussion papers not only identify

skills gap in research graduates but also recommend specific ways of training for

skills acquisition. For example, in the Research Workforce Strategy, the

Government overtly pointed out that in order to meet the skills demand of the

16

labour market, research training providers need to integrate transferable

employability skills in their programs: “it will be necessary to more explicitly

embed the development of both ‘soft’ or generic skills and innovation capabilities in

university research training programs to support students’ productivity in a wide

range of employment contexts” (DIISR, 2011, p.21, emphasis added).

In response to real and imagined global and regional economic and non-economic

changes that drives the HE system, Universities Australia, the peak body for 39

Australian universities, identifies key reform directions for the next four years.

Among other things:

[t]o develop a powerful research and innovation system that drives economic and social progress, universities will: review how best to train PhD graduates for employment in the broader economy and increase the number of international students enrolled in PhDs. (Universities Australia, 2013, p.4)

Relatedly, in an address on productivity and research workforce, Australia’s Chief

Scientist Prof. Ian Chubb (2013) stressed:

We need to restructure doctoral education to include a broader skill set – which currently is neither mandated nor explicitly encouraged in the research sector. […] Of course, the PhD is a research degree and must continue to be well grounded in the methods (and ethics) of research. […] But our complicated world needs more. We do need to take the time to develop additional skills that will help prepare the graduate for multiple opportunities. (para. # 66)

The Government reports and policy statements on the questions of skills gap and

skills relevance of research graduates were first endorsed by top university bodies

in Australia (namely the Group of Eight and Universities Australia). Then, at an

institutional level, a range of changes are being introduced in research training

programs. While some universities introduced less structured training programs

on leadership, entrepreneurship, and project management, others seem to focus

on deepening collaboration with end users and employers of research by way of

apprenticeship and staff exchange with industry (Universities Australia, 2013).

Further, as we have argued elsewhere (see Cuthbert & Molla, 2015), some public

universities reformed their research training programs to integrate employability

skills set in a more structured way. At present, the changes at institution level are

limited to PhD programs. The three examples of recently introduced pro-skills

17

PhD programs are: the Australian Technology Network Universities’ Industry

Doctoral Training Centre (ATN IDTC), the University of Queensland’s Career

Advantage PhD, and Monash University’s Monash PhD.

Industry-engagement of Australian Research Students

How much do we really know about the current levels of industry-engagement of

Australian research students? The framing of the PhD graduate employability

policy debate in Australia is predicated on assumptions, which require some

scrutiny. Firstly, the current policy articulation of the deficiencies of the

employment-related skills of doctoral graduates relative to the needs of industry

does not take into account a key feature of the PhD student population in

Australian HE. For example, the average age of the PhD candidate in Australia is

37 years and most were engaged in full time work in the year before embarking

on their research degrees (Edwards et al., 2009). Thus, this is a population which

has experience of the labour market, and is presumably already skilled in the

teamwork, communication and other soft skills called for by industry (Evans et al.,

2008). Thus, as persuasively argued in the submission to the House of

Representatives inquiry into research training and research labour force needs by

Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA), the average Australian

PhD candidate is not an empty vessel or blank slate with respect to work skills and

industry or professional experience as assumed in much of the policy discourse

(HRSCISI, 2008).

Second, the assumption in much of the discourse on the skills of doctoral

graduates is of an almost complete bifurcation of university and industry. Efforts

to facilitate greater engagement between the university sector and industry have

been a feature in Australian HE policy for at least two decades. Government

initiatives such as Co-operative Research Centres and the Australian Research

Council Linkage Scheme with its associated Australian Postgraduate Awards

Industry (APAI) have sought over many years to bridge the divide between the

academy and industry, with special emphasis on industry-focused research

training. While there has been a number of reviews of the effectiveness of these

schemes (Palmer, 2012), what is less well understood is the degree to which

18

doctoral education at Australian universities – outside of such schemes – is

variously engaged with, for and through industry.

It is commonly assumed that whatever the level of engagement between PhD

candidates and industry is, that it is far from sufficient. This point recurs in

presentations made by the Chief Scientist (e.g. Chubb, 2013). The views of Chubb

and others on the inadequacy of the current scale and scope of industry-engaged

doctoral training assume that we have a measure of the degree to which Australian

doctoral candidates are currently engaged in projects directed to industry

problems or otherwise engaged with industry. In fact, there is no reliable national

data on this.

While far from conclusive, the findings from a pilot study undertaken by RMIT’s

School of Graduate Research in 2014 throw some light on the question of how

much current doctoral work engages with industry and complicates the received

understandings generated in the policy debate. RMIT, a former technical college

with a long history of applied learning and research, has a cohort of around 1800

HDR candidates, the majority PhD candidates. In 2014, the School of Graduate

Research undertook a project called The Industry-engaged PhD, the aims of which

were to map current levels of industry engagement of the PhD cohort, identify

barriers to this mode of PhD research with a view to facilitating higher levels of

engagement, and identify and share best practice also to facilitate this mode of

research training and ensure candidates, supervisors and industry partners were

better supported in this endeavour.

The work was undertaken as an administrative, desk-top audit with data also

collected from a call for information from the Graduate Co-ordinators in the 20

schools in the university delivering PhD programs, and a survey of current PhD

candidates. While only two thirds of the school-based Graduate Co-ordinators

responded to the call for information, the audit nonetheless identified 424

individual PhD candidates whose doctoral research has some form of industry

engagement. Thus, due to non-reporting by some schools, the data collected is

likely to under-represent the level and scale of PhD-industry engagement at this

university. Nonetheless, it shows that over 25% of all HDR enrolments at the

university were engaged with industry is some way.

19

In attempting to classify and describe the kinds of engagement constituted in the

individual cases elicited through the audit, the rubric of “working in, working

through, and working for industry” was developed to reflect the variety of kinds

and degrees of industry engagement. The RMIT data reveal PhD candidates

engaged with industry on a continuum from the short term internship or

practicum (taken towards the end of the degree or at some point during

candidature), to research which used industry as a site of research or availed itself

of material, equipment or data owned by an industry partner, to research fully or

partly funded by industry and addressing industry problems.

The work undertaken at RMIT also throws light on why the phenomenon of

industry-engaged doctoral work has remained somewhat invisible and hence

difficult to report on at a central level. The reasons for this invisibility are a

function of university structures and culture. As many of the industry-

engagements are brokered at the level of supervisor, candidate or enrolling

school and funding is received also at school level, data on this dimension of the

work of the PhD candidates are not centrally held and hence not readily

reportable. Getting hold of data held at school level took weeks of persistent

inquiry. In schools with the most intensive industry-engaged doctoral programs

our inquiries were met with a degree of bewilderment: what we were seeking to

map was not anything special in their view, but rather business as usual. In one

such school in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) field,

the level of industry-engaged (and mostly fully funded) doctoral research was

over 80%.

Also notable were the range and diversity of industries with which candidates

were engaged; and the range of disciplines in which they worked. For example, it

was found that significant numbers of candidates in both the social sciences and

creative arts were engaged in research with bodies well beyond the university. In

the College of Design and Social Context which encompasses a wide range of social

science and creative practice disciplines, 42% of all candidates reported they were

working with industry partners. As with the STEM examples, these bodies served

as partners along a continuum: wholly or partly funding the work which

addressed an industry problem, making available resources or research materials,

20

or serving as research sites. Partners included a wide range of major corporations,

government at all levels, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and came from sectors such as creative and

cultural industries, human and community services, education and training, and

urban and regional planning, and built environment.

It should be noted that RMIT’s profile is somewhat distinctive, for example its

dual-sector (Higher Education/Technical and Further Education) constitution

gives it particular purchase on local SMEs in several sectors with which it works

closely in apprenticeship training and other vocational education. However, RMIT

is not unique in this and a number of other Australian universities – notably

University of Technology Sydney and Swinburne – shares elements of this profile

and history. The work undertaken by the School of Graduate Research at RMIT

indicates the need for further research on the current scale and scope of industry-

engaged research training within Australian universities. This, we suggest, might

serve significantly to reframe the current debates on both the employability skills

of graduates and the relevance and value of PhD education and usefully complicate

the easy bifurcation between the university and the labour market which persists

in the policy debates.

Conclusion

As we argue in this paper, the framing of a policy problem determines what issues

are subject to policy action and what issues are excluded from the frame. The

framing of the problem also generates assumptions which may then be taken as

axiomatic in addressing the problem as framed. It appears that it is now axiomatic

that there is a problem with research training programs, which can be ‘fixed’

through better or more ‘relevant’ employability training for candidates. As we

have argued this framing excludes what we know about Australian PhD cohorts in

terms of average age and prior professional and labour market experience. It also

takes as given the bifurcation between the research of current PhD candidates and

industry which data from the RMIT pilot study complicates, if not challenges. A

further key exclusion is any questioning of the preparedness and capacities of a

range of industries to employ, mentor and support PhD graduates in diverse

21

careers. The problems identified in PhD graduate employability are consistently

located in the graduates themselves or the universities which educate them.

There is a need for more sustained research on the topic of the employability of

PhD graduates and the appropriateness of the PhD in meeting the rapidly

changing demands of the academy, the global knowledge economy and societies

facing unprecedented challenges brought about by the complex of factors –

climate change, food security, social cohesion, mass population displacement and

migration, to name just a few – which dominate the human condition in the

twenty-first century. However, if this research is to add to understandings of the

complex dynamics of the post-graduation employment and careers of PhD

graduates it needs to move beyond the limiting frame in which the current policy

debate has been placed. More understanding is needed about the levels of

industry-engagement of current PhD candidates and what this means for post-

graduation employment. We also need to understand more about the conditions

which make for productive employment of PhD graduates in a range of labour

market settings. That is, it might be time to ask questions of employers about their

readiness to engage productively with PhD graduates, rather than bemoaning

graduates’ lack of preparation for employment. Similar considerations apply to

complaints about deficiencies in doctoral curricula in providing graduates with

the skills and attributes for employment which has been framed exclusively as a

problem which universities must fix. An alternative framing might enable this

problem, once better understood, to be addressed through co-operation between

universities and employers in the co-production of parts of the doctoral

curriculum to ensure industry needs are addressed.

Notes on contributors

Tebeje Molla is a research fellow at the Centre for Research in Educational Futures and Innovation, Deakin University, Australia. His research focuses on social justice in and through education, transnational educational policy processes, and research graduate employability. His recent articles appear in Comparative Education, Gender and Education, Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, and Journal of Education Policy. Denise Cuthbert is Dean of the School of Graduate Research at RMIT University, Melbourne. Her research and publications on higher education include work focusing on doctoral education, doctoral policy and researcher development.

22

References

APEC/DELOITTE. (2010). Skills and competencies needed in the research field objectives 2020. Paris: Author.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy. Melbourne: Pearson. Ball, S. (2005). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen Ball.

Hoboken: Routledge Becker, G. (1993 [1964]). Human capital. A theoretical and empirical analysis with

special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

BHERT [Business/Higher Education Round Table.] (2012). Research Skills for an Innovative Future: Views and Needs – Final report. Retrieved 10 July 2014, from http://www.bhert.com/activities/2012-research-skills-for-an-innovative-future

Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Brinkley, I. (2006). Defining the knowledge economy, Knowledge Economy Programme Report, The Work Foundation, London. Retrieved 10 November 2014, from http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/65_defining%20knowledge%20economy.pdf

Chubb, I. (2013). Productivity, Industry Engagement and the PhD Workforce. Speech Delivered at AMSI Accelerate Australia Conference (06 February). Retrieved 22 August 2014, from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2013/02/productivity-industry-engagement-and-the-phd-workforce/

Cuthbert, D., & Molla, T. (2015). PhD crisis discourse: a critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian ‘solutions’. Higher Education, 69(1), 33-53.

DIISR [Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research]. (2011). Research skills for an innovative future: A research workforce strategy to cover the decade to 2020 and beyond. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Edwards, D., Bexley. E., & Richardson, S. (2009). Regenerating the Academic Workforce. The careers, intentions and motivations of higher degree research students in Australia. Findings of the National Research Student Survey (NRSS). Melbourne: Australian Council of Education Research (ACER)

Evans, T., Evans, B., & Marsh, H. (2008). Australia. In M. Nerad & M. Heggelund (Eds.), Toward a global PhD? Forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide (pp. 171–203). Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.

Fairclough. N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. . In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.121-138). London: Sage.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23

Gale, T. (1994) Story-telling and policy making: The construction of university entrance problems in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 9(3), 227-232

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Graduate Careers Australia. (2010). Postgraduate Destinations 2009: A report on the work and study outcomes of postgraduates. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.

Graduate Careers Australia. (2011). Postgraduate Destinations 2010: A report on the work and study outcomes of postgraduates. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.

Graduate Careers Australia. (2012). Postgraduate Destinations 2011: A report on the work and study outcomes of recent higher education postgraduates. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.

Graduate Careers Australia. (2013). Postgraduate Destinations 2012: A report on the work and study outcomes of recent higher education postgraduates. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.

Group of Eight. (2013a). The changing PhD (Discussion paper). Canberra: Author. Group of Eight. (2013b). Where should governments invest their research

funding? Policy note. Retrieved 10 February 2014, from http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2013/go8policynote7_investresearchfunding_final.pdf

Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3-17.

Houghton, J., & Sheehan, P. (2000) A Primer on the knowledge economy. Center for Strategic Economic Studies. Victoria University, Melbourne.

HRSCISI [House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation]. (2008). Inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in Australian Universities. Submission 90 Submission 90: The Council of Association of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA): http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=isi/research/subs/sub90.pdf

Jessop, B. (2008). A cultural political economy of competitiveness and its implications for higher education. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe (pp.11-39). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.32- 64). London: Sage.

Kemp, D. (1999a). Knowledge and innovation: A policy statement on research and research training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Kemp, D. (1999b). New knowledge, new opportunities: A discussion paper on higher education research and research training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.14-31). London: Sage.

24

OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD.

OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. (2014). Education indicators in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Palmer, N. (2012). The CRC contribution to research training: Report of a scoping study for the Cooperative Research Centres Association. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne.

Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9 (1): 85–103.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). Higher education and graduate employment

in Europe. Results from graduate surveys from twelve countries. Dordrecht: Springer.

Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation in education. Journal of Political Economy,

68 (4), 571-583. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review,

51(1): 1–17. Snow, D. A., (2004). Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In D. A.

Snow, A. S. Sarah & K. Hanspeter (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp.380-412). Oxford: Blackwell.

The Allen Consulting Group. (2010). Employer demand for researchers in Australia (final report). Canberra: Author.

Thornton, M. (2014). Introduction: The retreat from the critical. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a glass darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university (pp.1-15). Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Universities Australia. (2013). A smarter Australia: An agenda for Australian higher education 2013–2016. Canberra: Author.

Verloo, M. (2004). Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Europe. A Frame Analysis Approach. Paper presented at Conference of the Europeanists in Chicago, March 11-13, 2004. http://www.mageeq.net/docs/magpap04.pdf

Verloo, M., & Lombardo, E. (2007). Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe (pp.21-50). In M. Verloo (Ed.), Multiple meanings of gender equality (pp.21-50). Budapest: CEU Press.

World Bank. (1999). World development report: Knowledge for development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: what it is – what it is not. York: The Higher Education Academy.

Zahidi, S. (2014). The human capital index. In M. Gmür & K. Schwab (Eds.), Education and skills 2.0: New targets and innovative approaches (pp.92-97). Geneva: World Economic Forum.

25