QAA discussion paper about doctoral programmes:
Summary of responses to question 10

Question 10: To what extent, if at all, should employers’ views influence the doctoral qualification descriptor?  

Numbers and percentages

Additional comments

Number

% of total

The next three rows provide an overview of responses to question 10. The rest of this table summarises the comments received,
sub-divided into broad categories.

Total number of responses to the consultation.

72

100%

Five (seven per cent) of the respondents to the discussion paper made no comment about
this question.

Number answering
this question.

67

93%

More than half the respondents think that the criteria for awarding doctoral qualifications as outlined in the QAA doctoral qualification descriptor should continue to be based on academic achievement. There is a wide range of views about how much employers should influence the descriptor, ranging from those who think employers should have no input, to those who would like employers to contribute to the content and structure of research degrees. To some extent the range of views represents and reflects the diversity of doctoral programmes and graduates and the different subject needs and conventions which have a significant bearing at doctoral level. There is therefore less convergence in the responses to this question than in the responses to some of the other questions asked in the discussion paper.

One of the messages that emerges from the comments taken as a whole is that, although the doctoral qualification descriptor should indisputably be based on academic criteria (that is, any doctorate should be awarded for academic achievement rather than for skills gained), there is an understanding and acknowledgement of the need for doctoral graduates to have acquired attributes that will help them to be employable. This point is extended by some, who emphasise the value of employer input and institutions’ engagement with employers generally in respect of the skills needed by doctoral graduates. Several respondents referred to the impact of the research councils’ Joint Skills Statement (JSS) and associated Roberts’ funding in supporting skills development.

The subtlety of the differences between opinions in some cases is demonstrated in the range of comments in the sections below. Some of those who support employer involvement also emphasise the predominantly academic requirements of the doctorate. Some respondents comment on the diversity of employers and their needs and hence the difficulty of finding a collective ‘employer view’ about the attributes doctoral graduates should have (that is, what characterises a graduate from a doctoral programme?). Another theme that emerges is the need for greater understanding between academic institutions and employers about their respective needs and aspirations with regard to doctoral graduates.

Comments on the doctoral qualification descriptor in relation to academic achievement and employer contributions
Please note that some respondents have been counted more than once in the sub-categories below if their comments covered several different points.

a  The majority of respondents said that the qualification descriptor should continue to be based on academic achievement.

46

64%

These respondents also made a variety of more general comments about employers’ contributions. None of the respondents in this group was critical of section c of the descriptor which refers to the ’transferable skills necessary for employment’.

Supporting points from some of the category a respondents are as follows.

• While recognising the importance of doctoral graduates to business and industry it is difficult to see, given the diversity of disciplines, how employers’ views could practically influence the descriptor, which needs to continue to be couched in terms of academic outcomes and achievement. Employers’ expectations of doctoral graduates cannot be a central element of doctoral study.
• Employer considerations should not allow the academic purpose and integrity of the doctoral programme to be eroded.
• The PhD is concerned with research for its own sake. It would be inappropriate for employers to influence the qualification descriptor; the doctorate is, after all, an academic award, not a vocational qualification.
• The degree should be awarded by academic discipline specialists.
• Achievement in the taught elements of doctoral programmes, or in skills development, should not form part of the PhD assessment.
• A measure of academic independence must be demonstrated in the doctoral qualification descriptor.
• It is unlikely that employers can, in any meaningful way, be included in
  crafting descriptors.
• Universities, not employers, must define the level of scholarship and academic standards required for a doctorate.
• We would not wish the emphasis placed on skills to be to the exclusion or detriment of academic achievement. The doctoral programme is primarily about the development and acquisition of new knowledge.
• Professional bodies may properly comment on skills sets but should not be able to modify degree-awarding institutions’ autonomy in conferring doctoral awards.
• Undue attention to employer views could be counter-productive to course content
  and recruitment.
• Specific features of professional doctorates are better expressed in programme specifications than in the qualification descriptor.
• Employers should not influence or alter the priority of sections (i) to (iv) [of the existing descriptor].
• It could be a retrograde and unnecessary step to pull back from the current specific academic standard, relating to publication in peer reviewed journals, in order to engage with the broader agenda of awareness for employability. The desire to improve competitiveness in technology transfer will not be achieved simply by increasing employability training in research programmes. A broader and more radical review is needed; the requirement to generate new knowledge is one of the most effective components of the doctoral degree - failures tend to occur further downstream, that is, after completion of the doctorate.
• It is appropriate for the sector to be aware of employer views, but there should not be a direct, formal impact on the qualification descriptor, which already includes reference to the qualities and generic skills necessary for employment. The descriptor needs to be sufficiently generic to take account of a valid variety of expectations of the doctoral qualification (including its pursuance for personal pleasure). There should not be too close a correlation between a research degree and specific outlets in the employment market, which might have a dangerous effect on the programme of skills training available, but it is important to provide flexibility in the opportunities such training opens up for high quality researchers.
• Employers have little knowledge of the doctorate, do not speak with one voice and should have very little influence [on the descriptor]. There is a lack of consistency even at undergraduate level. Some students undertake a PhD for the love of the subject, with no career aspirations.
• The diversity of student motives for engaging with doctoral study should also be taken into account. These may or may not be related to advancement in the workplace. For many doctoral students, it would be inappropriate to make employers’ views more central to the descriptor.
• The views of employers have already been observed in discussion of transferable skills and more careers advice than ever before is available to postgraduate research students. The development of ’knowledge exchange/knowledge transfer’ has also changed the culture of most universities to enhance awareness of the practical applications of research. It is not clear what more needs to be done.

b  These respondents recognise the value of employer engagement generally in doctoral education, even if they do not wish employer views to be directly reflected in the qualification descriptor.

25

34%

This group commented on the need for employer input to doctoral programmes; some did not link these comments to the qualification descriptor itself. Some of this group’s comments reflect the need to improve communication between academic institutions and employers about their respective understanding of the attributes of doctoral graduates.

Comments from this group were wide-ranging and included the following.

• Employer views are important in determining the nature of the ‘product’.
• Institutions should take on board employers’ views as appropriate to the field of study.
• Employers as sponsors may influence the scope and purpose of a specific research project.
• Industry and employers might influence the nature of the research.
• In particular, employers’ views may influence the broad direction of the
  research project.
• Employers can bring a useful perspective to any discussion of the aims of education.
• Employers’ views are important, but doctoral training is done within academia so graduates’ attributes will reflect that form of research. As universities are changing and pressure is on to foster commercial links, maybe this will alter.
• Employers tend to be tightly focused on their own requirements (with some notable exceptions), so there is a danger in too much involvement. Informal dialogue with employers is useful, however, and needs to continue.
• The Roberts’ agenda is a driving force with regard to transferable skills training to meet employment requirements. Research councils already act as a conduit for
  employers’ views.
• Employers’ views should inform transferable skills training for doctoral students. This institution’s surveys of employers suggest that the research councils’ JSS combined with Roberts’ funding is having an impact on improving the employability of
  doctoral graduates.
• We acknowledge the value of consulting employers on programme design.
• It is appropriate to seek the views of employers, or more practically employer organisations, in defining the skills and attributes they need from doctoral candidates. Institutions have a responsibility to communicate to employers the thinking behind the descriptor.
• The quote ‘some research suggests they [doctoral graduates] lack commercial awareness’ rings true but PhD study is very specialised and not necessarily rooted in the first instance in a commercial setting. It is not feasible to expect a PhD graduate to be the finished article in a commercial sense right from the start. In this context it could equally be said of employers that they have unrealistic expectations. If employers are directly funding PhDs then they clearly have some rights. In general, however, employers also have some responsibility to provide professional development/training and should not expect that the specialised knowledge, research and analytical skills of a doctoral graduate can be acquired at the same time as ‘workplace’ skills.
• Employers have an interest in ensuring that potential employees with doctorates are able to bring skills that will add value to their organisations. Likewise, universities have a responsibility to ensure that doctoral candidates acquire skills that will enhance employability. We think that skills for employment are already accommodated within the research councils’ JSS. These skills should be developed throughout the research degree programme as part of the education and research process. The doctoral qualification descriptor should be defined by institutions to reflect the desired academic outcomes.
• Institutions need to be clear about why they offer research degree programmes. This is influenced by where their graduates go. To some extent, employers are influenced in their choice of employees by the description of the degree awarded to the applicant. Inevitably institutions need to be influenced by employers in deciding what their degrees consist of and how they are described.
• Whilst employers’ views should help to inform the content and perhaps the structure of research degree programmes, it would be inappropriate for them to influence the doctoral qualification descriptor. The doctorate is, after all, an academic award, not a vocational qualification.
• There is not much value in producing PhD graduates that no-one wishes to employ and therefore there must be some listening [to employers]. This is being encouraged by a number of organisations. The inclusion of generic skills and attributes in the doctoral qualification descriptor serves to impress the importance of inclusion of such training and development on both the student and the institution.

12

17%

Some of the respondents counted in this category are also included in category a.
This does not imply that their responses are contradictory; many said that, although doctorates must continue to be awarded on the basis of academic attainment at an appropriate level, employers’ views were useful in influencing the transferable skills expected of doctoral graduates.

Comments from this group included the following.

• Employers have a legitimate interest in the descriptor, to the extent that all sections of the community have an interest in ensuring the learning outcomes of the doctorate continue to meet the needs of the society that provides public funding.
• It is appropriate for employers to have some influence on the doctoral qualification descriptor, especially with respect to the professional doctorate, but it is more relevant for them to contribute to projects and generic skills training.
• Employers’ views should influence the doctoral descriptor. However, this should be an appropriately managed, limited contribution, with control remaining with institutions. Such influence should not be limited to professional doctorates; employer representatives should be engaged with all types of doctorate.
• Employers might contribute to the skills sections of the descriptor. Although it is appropriate to consult employers, the weighting given to their views should not be disproportionate to those of other stakeholders.
• Employer views may influence skills, especially by raising business awareness.
• Doctoral graduates need to be considered employable and therefore employers’ views should be taken into account in any revision of the descriptor. However, it is also important that the doctorate reflects the academic requirements of a PhD as an academic qualification and as a ‘quality mark’. The descriptor’s primary role should therefore be to define the criteria of excellence required to merit the award of a doctorate. Any revision of the descriptor could take some account of, but should not be unduly influenced by, employers’ views.
• The doctoral qualification descriptor needs to encompass all aspects of a doctoral degree which contribute to ensuring doctoral candidates demonstrate their competence as researchers at an appropriate level. One aspect of this is exploring whether the doctoral qualification is meeting the needs of employers.

d  Some respondents suggested that institutions work closely with employers in respect of setting attributes for
graduates of professional doctorates.

11

15%

Comments from this group are summarised below.

• In professional doctorates, employers’ expectations will inevitably and appropriately be part of the curriculum studied.
• The institution works closely with employers in respect of professional doctorates.
• Employers’ views may influence the requirements of the professional doctorate.
• There may be lessons to be learned in how some professional doctorates have engaged professional bodies and employers in defining standards.
• In professional doctorates, the taught elements are likely to form an integral part of progress, being frequently linked to practice-based experience in the professions. In such circumstances the taught elements of professional doctorates could be accredited and form part of the overall assessment.
• Employers’ views should be accommodated within the nature of the research
  and its contribution within the specific context, for example in the case of
  professional doctorates.
• With respect to professional doctorates there is an obvious and necessary input to some of these programmes by employers but nevertheless academics must retain the control of the project (research) component.

e  This group of respondents emphasised that academic institutions form the largest group
of employers of
doctoral graduates.

11

15%

The respondents in this group noted the need for the descriptor to take account of institutions’ views as the biggest employer group of doctoral graduates.

Some of the comments from this group are summarised below.

• Academic institutions are one of the biggest employers of doctoral graduates. Those intending to work in industry should be made aware of the different mix of skills and competences needed for such employment. Post-doctoral researchers represent the main source of future academics, teachers and researchers in the UK; their experience should be geared towards becoming the ‘seed corn’ for the continued future of the discipline.
• It is appropriate to consult employers, bearing in mind that universities are a significant employer of PhD students. A substantive element of this institution’s doctoral programme is the provision of highly skilled researchers who can make a significant contribution to a wide range of employment.
• The qualification descriptor reflects generic rather than subject-specific qualities and attributes and appears already to be directed towards the needs of potential employers outside the academic sector. But, many doctoral graduates seek employment in higher education institutions and other centres of learning, whose views as ‘employers’ are probably not fully reflected in the descriptor.
• It is important to recognise that the higher education sector is the predominant employer of doctoral graduates.

10

14%

Although made by a relatively small number of respondents, this point is key to the challenges faced in responding to employer needs when defining doctoral studies.

Comments from this group are summarised below.

• Employer views (including higher education institutions’ views as major employers of PhD graduates), can be a constructive influence, although there is considerable diversity in potential employers.
• The diversity of views and requirements of employment sectors (other than the higher education sector itself, which is the predominant employer of doctoral graduates) means that consensus is unlikely to be achieved.
• There is no single employer perspective; different employers focus on research from different disciplines, making a unified contribution to the doctoral qualification descriptor almost impossible. It is probably better for employers to contribute at a disciplinary rather than a generic level.
• Doctoral graduates go into a wide range of professions: academic, pure research, industry, teaching, the City, etc. It is a challenge to get a systematic view of employer requirements and a partial or incomplete view could provide a distorted picture.
• There remain questions about the mechanism by which employer views could be integrated, such as:
• which employers (large/small)?
• which individuals?
• whose views would prevail and why?
• The question of employer needs and the relationship between doctoral study and workplace environments is complex. An institution employing a PhD graduate as a career academic expects embedded academic standards which will guarantee the quality of academic judgements made by the holder for a professional lifetime. A commercial employer taking on a post-doc who did his/her doctoral work on a research project funded by the same organisation will have different expectations. Other employers may be looking for generic, ‘doctor-level’ skills.
• Greater awareness of disciplinary and professional differences within policy and employer fora would be useful.
• Employers need to be specific and clear about what they want from doctoral graduates.
• Employers are a disparate group and therefore finding a common articulation of ‘their view’ is difficult. In addition, we feel that ‘employability’ is a concept that is easily used but much harder to define.

10

14%

Some respondents in this group also pointed out the potentially conflicting demands faced
by students around the need to acquire skills for employment not directly related to
their research.

Comments in this group included the following.

• Students may wish to improve their transferable skills and should have the opportunity to do so during their doctorate.
• The tendency towards including the larger elements of advanced, discipline-specific training and generic research skills training in PhD programmes is to be encouraged; for PhD students, completion of such training can provide useful milestones in student progress. There is no support for the view that achievement on these taught elements or on specified programmes for skills development should form part of the
  PhD assessment.
• We recognise the impact that the Roberts’ report has had on highlighting the importance of the acquisition of generic skills for research students and these are now emphasised in the training of all research students.
• A conflict is perceived by some supervisors between the immediate training needs of candidates for the purpose of completing their research programme and the time needed to acquire general employability skills. This institution has taken the position that the employability of doctoral graduates is an issue to be considered by candidates and supervisors in developing training programmes and to this extent the views of employers need to be taken into account. But it is far from clear whether a sector approach is appropriate in the doctoral context, or whether a judgement of the lifelong training value of a qualification can be made on the basis of the immediate employment criteria applied at doctoral graduate entry by employers.
• It is possible to accommodate more generic skills without changing the model of the PhD, provided that the way in which the skills are gained and demonstrated is carefully integrated with the particular research programme leading to the doctorate. A training needs assessment, or equivalent, is required [for individual students] to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to identify skills ‘gaps’.
• Although it is the candidate’s ability to create new knowledge or apply existing knowledge to new problems or situations which forms the basis of awarding a research degree, we recognise that the acquisition of generic skills is an important part of any graduate’s programme.

4

5%

These respondents said that:

• the informed views of employers should be taken into account, but only alongside other stakeholders. There is a role for professional and representative bodies, who are likely to be in a position to take a broader view of a particular sector and in many cases have existing relationships with and an understanding of the HE sector
• any amendment to the doctoral qualification descriptor should acknowledge the contribution that any type of doctoral study, including the PhD, can make to professional practice
• professional bodies may properly comment on skill sets but they should not be able to modify degree awarding institutions’ autonomy
• specific disciplines or types of doctorate may have additional criteria at institutional or PSRB level.