The employment of social science PhDs in academic and non-academic jobs

Summary
Introduction
Context
Entry into postgraduate study and subsequent employment
First destinations of social science PhD graduates
Skills and training (pre-Roberts)
Employees' perception of the fit between postgraduate skills and employer needs
Employers' perspective on postgraduate skills training
References

Summary

Research conducted by Professor Peter Elias of the University of Warwick, and Professor Kate Purcell (then of the University of the West of England) found that a majority of social science PhD graduates took jobs that they enjoyed, and that they felt were appropriate to someone with their qualifications.

A majority of these graduates went into higher education occupations, but non-academic employment was significant, and not a second-best option - PhD graduates outside academia tended to be more satisfied with their jobs, with extra job stability mirrored by academic concerns about the prevalence of contract work and the consequent job insecurity that it entails.

Graduates felt that their doctoral training had equipped them with many of the relevant skills they needed to succeed in the job market - however some of these were not through formal training and there is evidence that work still needs to be done to meet the targets of the Roberts agenda. Quantitative skills, and, to a lesser extent, some interpersonal skills, were recognised by graduates and employers to be an area that requires work.

Few specialist employers of social science PhDs outside academia seem to exist, and those that do require specific disciplines, usually in economics and psychology. But opportunities are available and employers spoke positively about those social science PhDs they employed.

Introduction

This article looks at research conducted by Professor Peter Elias of the University of Warwick, and Professor Kate Purcell (then of the University of the West of England) and a team of researchers - Sue Durbin and Stella Warren of the University of the West of England, and Rhys Davies of the University of Warwick. The research was commissioned by the Training and Development Board (TDB) of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), ‘to review the needs of non-academic employers for highly-qualified social scientists’. As the research progressed, the investigation grew to cover other issues around the delivery and coverage of postgraduate research programmes [1].

Context

With increased participation in higher education, the pool of postgraduate qualifiers, particularly at Masters level, has expanded. The number of people gaining high level social science qualifications has seen a marked increase. The introduction of initiatives aimed at postgraduate skills training, largely coming about as a result of the 2002 Roberts Report, has also had an impact on postgraduates [2]. These developments have raised questions as to how far higher degrees in many disciplines, including the social sciences, are valued by employers outside the traditional recruiters within academia - and indeed if they are valued at all.

Entry into postgraduate study and subsequent employment

The Elias and Purcell research examined the movement of recent graduates into postgraduate study, through data obtained from the authors’ cohort study of graduates from 1999 [3]. This is augmented by information from a follow-up survey of social science PhDs, which examined differences in the experiences of those who entered academic employment from those who did not.

Examining the movement of social science graduates from 1999 into postgraduate study showed that numbers peaked at two to three years after graduation, when approximately 2-3 per cent were taking PhDs. Social science graduates proved relatively less likely to enter postgraduate research directly after the completion of their undergraduate degree than the science graduates who make up the bulk of students at PhD level, and this has implications when considering social scientists as a subset of highly-qualified degree students.

The Class of '99 survey included a number of questions on reasons for undertaking courses once the first degree was completed. Ninety per cent of social science PhD students stated that the development of specialist skills and knowledge was a key motivator, and 59% believed that their PhD would improve their employment prospects. Fifty-five per cent also felt that their knowledge would broaden with a PhD - many PhD students did feel that both their specialist and general skills have been improved with doctoral study. At the same time, the survey found that PhD graduates in general placed much less importance on financial reward and more on job satisfaction than did graduates without PhDs, indicating different priorities and asking questions about the self-image and expectations of those who go on to doctoral study.

First destinations of social science PhD graduates

The Class of 99 survey found that 73.1% of 134 Research Council funded social science PhD graduates from 2003/4 were in full-time work six months after graduating, with another 11.9% in part-time work, and 5.1% in self-employment, freelance or voluntary work (this is not dissimilar to results from the 2003/4 Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey [4]). In addition, 68% were working in higher education, and the rest were in other sectors, but due to the small sample size it is difficult to single out any other occupation as being particularly significant. Eighty per cent of these employed social science PhDs did describe their current job as 'exactly the type of work that they wanted to do', a very high score which indicates the success of the PhD in helping graduates reach a desired outcome.

Many of the postgraduates who reported working outside academia took their jobs to broaden experience and because of the opportunity to progress. There was little evidence that significant numbers of social science postgraduates were taking non-academic jobs because they were unable to find the academic position that they really coveted.

Compared with their non-academic counterparts, those in academia were, however, more likely to claim the job was 'exactly the type of work' that they wanted, that they were using the skills they had gained during their PhD, and that it enabled them to work in a particular geographical area.

Also in this report, a survey of ESRC-funded PhDs between 1998 and 2000 found that those in non-academic jobs reported higher salaries, better job security, and more opportunity to develop new skills than did their academic counterparts [1]. They also noted satisfaction ratings for many aspects of their jobs (save flexible working and the opportunity to use initiative), that outstripped those for academic employees - particularly in considering job security and progression opportunities.

Most graduates were satisfied with their jobs and felt that they were appropriate for someone with their qualifications. Non-academic employees were slightly more likely to be satisfied, although they were also slightly more likely to consider their jobs inappropriate for a social science PhD holder - this last group was, however, small.

The conclusion is plain - non-academic employment is not a 'second-best' option for those PhDs who could not make it in academia. It is a viable career choice in its own right. The job security issue is particularly significant - whilst over 70% of non-academic employees were on permanent or open-ended contracts, less than half of the academic counterparts were in the same position - more of them were on fixed term employment.

Skills and training (pre-Roberts)

The Elias and Purcell research had a key aim to determine which skills were acquired by social science PhDs as part of their qualification, and to what extent their subsequent employment used these skills. To investigate the issue, the survey of ESRC-funded PhDs between 1998 and 2000, mentioned in the previous section, was examined.

Looking at specific research skills, the most commonly required by academic and non-academic employees alike was the ability to think critically. Although a minority reported that this skill was formally trained during their study, almost all believed it had been developed as a consequence of their research. In general, doctoral study provided training and development in the research skills required for employment. Significantly fewer graduates, however, reported that they had been trained or developed in qualitative and, particularly, quantitative methods than required them for their work, with non-academic employment seeing a particular disparity between those who needed to interpret or present quantitative data (84.1% of non-academic respondents) and those who had been trained (61.4%) or had their quantitative skills developed (56.8%) in the course of their degree. This is especially relevant in light of the ESRC's review in February 2006, which concludes that the supply of quantitative social science researchers requires attention [5].

Similar information was obtained on general research skills - graduates reported that verbal and written communication skills, and computing skills were the most often required in both academic and non-academic employment. Project management skills appeared to be the area that are least developed in terms of need for graduates - 89.6% of non-academic employees and 91.5% of academic employees stated these skills to be a job requirement, but only 47.9% of non-academic employees and 66.2% of academic employees felt that the skills had been developed in the course of their study - it is also interesting to note the large difference between academic and non-academic views of their own skills development.

In research management and team working skills, there were a number of areas where graduates felt that the skills required were neither specifically trained or developed during their studies. In particular, all non-academic employees felt they required time management (with 70% reporting that this was developed during the course of their studies), quality management (61.9%), interpersonal (52%) and teamworking skills (30.6%), with fewer than 10% receiving formal training in any individual skill. This indicates a significant area of development for skills training programmes, albeit one that may have been partially filled by initiatives arising in the wake of Sir Gareth Roberts' 2002 report, and the funding that arose as a result.

Overall, the large majority of employees felt that their research training was useful or very useful for their employment, with rather more academic than non-academic employees likely to state that their training was 'very useful' (71.1% against 49% respectively).

This gives a picture of skills development pre-Roberts - many social science PhDs were developing skills that were required as part of their subsequent employment as part of their PhD (although often not as part of formal training). However, some areas of quantitative research skills, verbal communication and general research and team working skills were not necessarily developed in graduates who were subsequently called upon to demonstrate them as part of employment.

Employees' perception of the fit between postgraduate skills and employer needs

Thirty one telephone interviews were conducted with ESRC-funded social science PhD graduates, as part of the Elias and Purcell study between October 2004 and May 2005. The aim was to examine respondents' experiences as PhD students and their career development post graduation. The interviews also sought to gain an insight into skills training, and in particular whether that training met the recommendations laid out by Roberts.

Most respondents indicated that they had received formal research methods training, with qualitative methods the most common. Training in other areas took place, but was not so common, indicating that current provision fell short of the Roberts recommendations in some areas - although it appears that some departments are meeting or exceeding Roberts requirements.

Written communication skills were the most commonly developed during PhD training, with research design, interviewing and questioning skills also prominent.

There was, however, concern from some of the PhD graduates about shortfalls in opportunities to develop both qualitative and quantitative approaches, particularly the latter, with some interviewees mentioning collusion by supervisors in evading research methods training.

All but three of the graduates were employed - one had just had a child, and two were still writing up - all but one felt that their PhD had helped them to get employment that they had wanted, and most were satisfied with their current work.

Employers' perspective on postgraduate skills training

Many employers were approached to give their views, but the majority did not respond. Some stated that they did not recruit employees with social science PhDs, or that they were unaware of recruiting such candidates. Amongst non-academic employers who did reply, the finance industry was disproportionately represented, and only four organisations actively sought to recruit PhD holders - the others had taken PhD holders, but not explicitly because of their PhD.

PhDs were often employed as part of general graduate recruitment. They were sometimes seen as an important credential, implying good methodological training and analysis skills, and thus imparting an advantage to their owner. Research skills were also seen as having been developed by PhD holders, and that this could be beneficial when the time came for selection.

Those organisations who had not specifically looked for PhDs, but recruited PhD holders, had positive things to say about the calibre of their new employees, with their ability to learn and adapt quickly being cited, as well as research skills. There was evidence of PhD employees in graduate-level jobs growing their roles, once in post, to becoming something that required PhD skills.

Employers generally preferred good interactive and project-management skills, and felt that those PhD graduates who were able to demonstrate these abilities would enjoy an advantage in jobseeking. There were, however, some expressed misgivings from some employers about the level of interpersonal and communications skills in some PhD candidates, but more concern was stated about skills level in statistics and quantitative analysis, with some employers reporting genuine difficulties in recruiting candidates with good quantitative skills.

In all, demand for specific PhDs was limited to few employers outside academia, and only for a narrow range of specialist occupations, primarily in economics and psychology. These employers had very specific requirements, and were often very well-informed about developments in PhD skills training. Those employers who had not set out to recruit PhDs looked for evidence in a wide range of skills (although research was strongly represented) and were happy with the PhD holders that they had recruited. This group were often not aware of changes in PhD skills training and were sometimes suspicious of suspected overqualification or overspecialisation in PhD graduates, indicating confusion amongst some employers about what PhD study and research involves.

References

1. The Employment of Social Science PhDs in Academic and Non-academic Jobs: research skills and postgraduate training, Kate Purcell and Peter Elias with Sue Durbin, Rhys Davies and Stella Warren.

2. SET for Success, Sir Gareth Roberts for the HM Treasury, 2002.

3. Class Of '99: A Study of the Early Labour Market Experiences of Recent Graduates, Kate Purcell, Peter Elias, Nick Wilton and Rhys Davies, 2005.

4. What Do Postgraduates Do?

5. Demographic Review of the UK Social Sciences, Mills et al, ESRC, February 2006.

Members' login