Abstract
The study aims to explore how Taiwan doctoral education in knowledge society meets the change of labor market, and how doctoral students deal with the socialization and professional training during their study, as well as influence their perspectives on career plan and job choices. That is, assuming that socialization and professional training have relationships and influences on doctoral students’ career decision. The research questions are as follows: (1) Will the related factors of implementing socialization in doctoral education predict the choices of different career paths? and (2) What factors will affect doctoral students’ perspectives on future job market (academia, public sector, private sector)? 2,000 questionnaires, snowball and purposely sampling, were sent to current registered doctoral student and 914 questionnaires were returned, excluding 214 invalid ones. The amount number of valid respondents is 700.
Introduction
The role of doctoral education in cultivating academic elites among advanced countries has been clearly articulated over past decades, and its impact on leading socioeconomic development and nurturing researchers has been heavily emphasized. Furthermore, the quality of doctoral graduates trained by higher education institutions (
In spite of the fact that credentialism has been prevailing in Taiwanese society, this perception of academic success and achievement makes PhD holders a prestigious social class. With that, higher education has rapidly expanded in Taiwan as structural change occurred in
Despite the expansion of higher education being beneficial for society as a whole, especially in sustaining economic success, problems in terms of oversupply of
However, previous empirical studies related to Taiwan
Literature Review
Doctoral Education in Knowledge Society
Context and the Impact of Doctoral Education
A growing concern has been raised with respect to the crucial role of higher education and research in the world-wide knowledge economy. Perceiving that
Moreover, not only was there a large increase in the number of doctoral graduates, from 410 doctorates in 1989 to 4,241 in 2011, but also the number of doctoral students enrolled in
In addition to the increase in domestic PhD graduates, the aggregate number of students studying abroad has increased dramatically as well. The Ministry of Education (2018) indicates that more than 30,000 students went abroad for academic pursuits in 2017–2018. Although the number has been skyrocketing, a boost in the number of higher-educated graduates echoes Chen and Chens’ (2018) argument that growing the growing scale of
The rapid changes in knowledge and technology together with needs in labor markets and industry for doctoral education have given rise to shortening the duration of PhD completion. Pritchard, MacKenzie, and Cusack (2009) argue there have been increased calls for doctoral education to include more emphasis on the development of professional training and changing demands from external agencies. A number of scholars indicate the change in doctoral education reflects the dynamic relationship between universities and employers, as well as the influence of increased numbers of doctoral students pursuing careers outside the university (Gilbert 2004; Pritchard, MacKenzie, & Cusack, 2009). Accordingly, several works have suggested that policy has to shift the conventional definition of doctoral education to one that focuses on broader skills and relevance for career choices outside academia, including workplace skills, entrepreneurship, knowing how to teach others, social responsibility, etc. (Austin 2010; Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Cummings & Bain, 2018; Coppola, 2009). Hence, doctoral education needs to incorporate collaboration with industry and government in facilitating doctoral students to acquire transferable skills, such as communication, leadership, ability and willingness to change, creativity, and abilities to handle complex problems and issues. To avoid what Tinto (1993) argues about integration in higher education institutions, via Durkheim’s concept—that students have a stronger probability of dropping out if their values and expectations do not match the culture of their institution—there comes a need for further analysis on doctoral students’ education and their selection of jobs.
Knowledge Society and Doctoral Education
In the knowledge society, doctoral education plays a significant role in producing knowledge as a “bridge builder” to connect society and industries. With that, traditional structures and cultures of doctoral education must integrate professional training closely with industry needs (Lee, Brennan, & Green, 2009). It is believed that the development of
On the other hand, the inputs invested in doctoral education are no longer solely paved for academic pathways. An integral part of doctoral programs is encouragement to incorporate user-driven, multidisciplinary and industry-based coursework to equip doctoral students with marketability. Consequently, personal interaction, time management, collaboration, management skills, and teaching ability, are much highlighted to tailor a doctoral program for the current knowledge society (Austin, 2010; Green, 2009;
Professional Training and Socialization
Professional Training in Doctoral Education
The rapidly changing social structure accelerated newly developed higher education in Taiwan, and the transition from post-industrial society to knowledge economy has led to a rapid demand for more investment in talent. Chen (2018) notes that as academic career job offers become scarcer, an oversupply of PhD holders coupled with a steeper drop in wages, as well as deteriorating quality of work, have resulted in a declining number of doctoral enrollments, which has posed a threat to economic development, flow of knowledge, and exploitation of intellectual capital in Taiwan
The imbalance between supply and demand for doctoral students and vacancies in labor markets may lie in the design of curriculum. The traditional curriculum, with overemphasis solely on academic research techniques, lacks updated attention to the needs of changing environment. Ho (2017) mentions that the gap between doctoral education and practical skills entailed by the private sector mainly results from the components of current curriculum failing to respond to the needs in industries. Morrison, Rudd and Nerad (2011) also agree that the current doctoral education system should expand the scope of curriculum by identifying the skill levels needed for different types of jobs in response to the limited positions in academia.
The Humboldtian model, the classical German university tradition, has set an example to show how this system has demonstrated its excellence to nurture future scientists in its path (Chen, 2018). The role of being a doctorate has been forced to be redefined in the globalized world; that is, the trend of cultivating practical and market-oriented skills to prepare for diverse career paths has been considered as a norm.
Socialization Process in Doctoral Education
The role of socialization for doctoral students is a process that assists them in transition to gain advanced knowledge and necessary values and skills to enter a professional career (Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Socialization also refers to a commitment to devote himself/herself to being prepared for a professional role through interactions with their peer group, their supervisor, and institutional cultures (Jung, 2018). Doctoral studies provide an extended opportunity for both formal and informal socialization processes to take place. Through curricular and extracurricular experiences, doctoral students are inducted into graduate studies, as well as the norms and standards of their disciplines and professions, most notably academic careers (Portnoi, Chlopecki, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2015). Guo, Kang and Shi (2018) identify two types of socialization: academic socialization and professional socialization, indicating that the former places an emphasis on the process of acquiring and improving knowledge and skills, while the latter refers to the process of professionalization of what is required for being a scholar/specialist (such as values and attitude). Three stages of socialization are also identified. The first stage is “choice”, which means the preparatory phase as new doctoral students enter the doctoral education system with their anticipation, values and capabilities. Second, “adaption and integration” play a role as a “merger” to help students determine their degree of fitness via formal and informal learning and research activities. Hence, these learning experiences equip them with newly acquired tangible and intangible skills, such as professional knowledge, determination, action and attitudes to reshape what they perceived in the first stage. The last is “commitment”, enabling doctoral students to internalize the culture, norms and values shared by the scholarly community, and further become a member of it.
In addition, there are five decisive factors to catalyzing the socialization process in doctoral education, and they play a part in whether doctoral students are able to become scholars or specialists in the future (Anderson & Anderson, 2012; Boden, Borrego, & Newswander, 2011; Gardner, 2008; Jazvac-Martek, Chen, & McAlpine, 2011). The first factor refers to environment and community, which means that a university encompass abundant resources for students to learn, such as education infrastructure, interdisciplinary curriculum, and international cooperation. Second, participation in learning activities plays a role in providing a channel for students to actively take part in diverse learning activities to enhance problem-solving techniques and strengthen the tie between peers. Third, engagement in research is considered a means to spark students’ motivation to get involved in research work and make contributions to scholarly production. The next is international mindset which can encourage professors with students to build scholarly community through publishing papers and engaging in academic conferences. The final factor is mentorship, through which the close interaction between faculty and student is thus formed.
However, academic socialization is deemed as a prerequisite to prepare for the future job market in either academic or non-academic careers. Thus, this process particularly values the learning process of professional knowledge, enhancement of skills, and cultivation of core competencies. Guo, Kang and Shi (2018) believe that faculty roles and the learning environment are important factors to the facilitation of academic socialization, because the positive impact on the process of socialization depends on how involved the attitude that faculty demonstrate toward students is, such as rigorousness in conducting research and active participation in academic activities. On the other hand, professional socialization is a connected, dynamic and continuing process through which doctoral students gain the understanding of work, knowledge and skills (Guo, Kang, & Shi, 2018; Jazvac-Market, 2009; Teichler, Arimoto, & Cummings, 2013). There is no doubt that the process and outcomes of professional socialization lie in their expectation prior to becoming doctoral students and their commitment to their professional goals. Therefore, from the standpoint of
Job Market and Career Decision
Kim, Benson and Alhaddab (2018) find that pursuing an academic career is still the priority for most PhD receivers, even if some have prior experience in the private sector. The reasons behind PhD receivers favoring research career development are: first, the time and attention they allocate within the context of conducting research have their mindset more oriented toward academic life; second, to pass on the mentor’s reputation and prestige, PhD receivers are encouraged to keep their career paths focused on academia instead of industry.
Compared with those specializing in
Methodology
Sampling
This study proposed a framework to investigate the relationship among socialization, professional training, and perspectives on job market in Taiwan doctoral education. The number of the registered doctoral students in Taiwan
The data collection period was from June 2018 to November 2018. A total of 914 questionnaires was returned, excluding 214 invalid returns, for an effective response rate of 35%. As presented in Table 1, there were 56.7% male and 46.3% female students. In order to generalize the results, this study simplified the classification of discipline, with 71.2% of participants being non-
Demographics of doctoral student respondents (N = 700)
Demographics of doctoral student respondents (N = 700)
The study was based on the original international questionnaire, “Doctoral Student Survey in Asian Flagship Universities”, developed by leading research universities in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In order to compare current doctoral education among different countries and regions, the research team conducted in-depth interviews with doctoral students to build up the main elements of the constructs that professionalizing doctoral students should bear. According to the inductive results of interviews and literature review, the English version questionnaire was made.
The survey instrument was then modified to Taiwan’s higher education context, being translated by two bilingual experts and validated by five higher education experts to establish content validity to make sure the translated version fitted the academic context of Taiwan doctoral education. This questionnaire has five main constructs: (1) doctoral program admission and supervisor selection (e.g., enrollment, choice of institution and supervisor, relation with supervisor, supervisor involved in international research activity, interval of meeting time, demographics of the supervisor); (2) experiences from doctoral program (e.g., interaction with peers, curriculum, support from department and university, learning stress, culture and climate of the program’s learning-research community); (3) learning and research activities in the doctoral program (e.g., time spent with teaching/research/administrative work/non-research activities, factors in developing a research topic for doctoral dissertation, research outcomes, knowledge and attributes acquired during doctoral program); (4) career plan (e.g., working in academic/government/private sectors, pursuing postdoctoral position, reason for pursuing postdoctoral position in overseas country, factors influencing career choices, perspective on future job market); and (5) personal information (e.g., gender,
Measures and Analyses
Since this study aims to investigate the relationship among socialization, professional training and perspectives on the job market in Taiwan’s doctoral education, independent variables are socialization process factors (including academic motivation), factors of choosing a supervisor, relation with the supervisor, international involvement of the supervisor, satisfaction with campus support, importance of key factors influencing career planning, culture and climate of program, and knowledge and attributes acquired during doctoral study. Dependent variables for this study are career plan and perspectives on the job market. Demographic variables include gender, full-time or part-time student, academic year,
Independent Variables
Academic motivation and factors in choosing a supervisor
It is reasonable to argue that the motivation for pursuing a doctoral degree, for most graduate students, is to be an academic or independent researcher. Therefore, the study adopts the item “Desire to work in academia” to examine the motivation and intention of being enrolled in a doctoral program (M = 5.26, SD = 1.79). Furthermore, the motivations of choosing a supervisor are also the factors influencing future job selection for doctoral students. It stands to reason that students will select the supervisor who may provide connections or resources after graduation. Via factor analysis, there are five items extracted under a single factor and named as “The motivation for choosing a supervisor”. Sample items included “My supervisor’s expertise in this field is useful when seeking job in the future” (M = 5.36, SD = 1.28). Cronbach’s alpha value for this subscale was .857, demonstrating good internal consistency reliability.
Relation with supervisor and supervisor involved in international research activities
Consistent with the previous literature, it is found that the relation between doctoral students and supervisors is one of the main factors in terms of career plans and job selection. With factor analysis, there were 11 items extracted under one factor and named as “The relation with the supervisor”. Sample items included “I have good personal relationship with my supervisor” (M = 5.7, SD = 1.17). The coefficient internal consistency reached .944, demonstrating its adaptability of measurement. Not only that, it is hypothesized if a supervisor often gets involved with cross-national projects, it could promote doctoral student’s global vision and mobility. This would also enhance doctoral students’ self-confidence in future career planning. Three survey items were used for this measure, including “My supervisor has a strong international research networks” (M = 5.64, SD = 1.4). Cronbach’s alpha value for this subscale was .874, which is good for the measurement.
Satisfaction with campus support and culture and climate of program
Campus support and climate of program are important elements for successful socialization. Campus support included peers, senior and junior friendships, resources provided by departments and universities. The content of the program curriculum was even crucial for nurturing doctoral students’ proficiency and built a supportive network to help finishing study leading to a successful career. There were 18 items against which respondents evaluated their satisfaction in receiving support from peer interaction, curriculum, and campus experiences, such as: “I am able to learn from senior graduate students”; “My program offers helpful research methodology classes”; and “My department offers plenty of scholarships to doctoral students” (M = 4.59, SD = 1.2). Cronbach’s alpha value for this subscale was .925, perfect measurement.
On the other hand, culture and climate of program were for respondents to evaluate the program’s academic autonomy and learning atmosphere. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted by principal component analysis. Four items were extracted as one factor under an umbrella named “Climate of program”, including a sample item “Student can freely present any comment to professors and academics” (M = 5.35, SD = 1.16). Cronbach’s alpha value for this subscale was .647, and the explained variation reached 49%, demonstrating good reliability and construct validity.
Independent knowledge ability and interactive knowledge ability
Doctoral students’ capability of utilizing proficiency would determine their self-confidence while planning career and job selection. It used the mean of 14 survey items related to knowledge and attributes acquired to examine the content of nurturing proficiency during doctoral study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted by principal component analysis, followed by Oblimin rotation with an eigenvalue above 1. Two conceptually meaningful factors were extracted, explaining 67.76% of the total variance: one was labeled “independent knowledge ability” (10 items, e.g., methodology, innovation, critical analysis thinking, scholarly context, problem solving, creativity) (M = 5.16, SD = 1.2), and the other was labeled “interactive knowledge ability” (4 items, e.g., project management, networks, teamwork) (M = 4.78, SD = 1.43).Cronbach’s alpha values for this subscale were .939 and .878 respectively, perfect for measurement.
Key factors influencing career planning
The career paths for a PhD receiver could be focused on either academia or industry. No matter which path is taken, the abilities of practicing research and academic network building were the fundamental requirements for doctoral students. Twelve survey items were used for examining the importance of developing careers. Sample items included: “Relationship with my supervisor”; “Research performance on international journal, foreign language proficiency” (M = 5.23, SD = 1.08). Cronbach’s alpha values for this subscale reached .885.
Dependent Variables
Career Paths and Confidence about Future Employment
The dependent variables for the study are career plans of doctoral students after receiving their degrees, and their perspectives on the job market. Among seven related items indicating career plans, we extracted three paths via factor analysis: (1) to be employed in university as a tenured academic, non-tenured academic, postdoctoral position; (2) to be employed in the public sector (government or public research institute); and (3) to be employed in the private sector or self-employed. Besides career paths, we are also concerned whether the socialization process during doctoral education would affect students’ confidence about future employment. Survey items for viewpoints of job market (M = 3.69, SD = 1.78) included: “There is a varied range of jobs that I can choose after obtaining PhD”; “It will not be difficult to find a job once I complete my PhD”; and “I am satisfied with the level of salary I will be offered once I complete my PhD”. Cronbach’s alpha value for this subscale was .867.
Findings and Discussion
According to Table 1, the respondents revealed their future career preference was not only focused on academia. With that, we further elaborate several relations among variables via Pearson correlation and multiple regression. This helps to understand the influence of the socialization process upon future career decisions, the degree of confidence, and the predictions about it. Meanwhile, we also examined collinearity before doing the multiple regression. Collinearity is the correlation between the predictor variables showing linear relationships in the regression model. It might mean the independent variables could not independently predict the dependent variables. That is to say, it might explain some of the same variance in the dependent variable and it would reduce the statistical significance. To avoid these situations, we use the Variance Inflationary Factor (
Table 2 summarizes the correlations between 15 independent variables and 4 dependent variables were -.214 ~.52, resulting in medium to low correlation. Except in a few cases, most of the predictor variables and dependent variables were statistically significant. It meant the predictor variables and dependent variables remained in correlation. With the regression analysis, we might identify the most important independent variables and their explanation to dependent ones. Followings are the results of predictors on types of career decision and the confidence to future job market.
Types of Career Decision
Note 1: a = Supervisors involved in
Further, we compared standardized coefficients and showed as in Table 3. The item “pursuing a postdoc position” revealed the best explanation with β value of .34, followed with “Academic motivation” (β =.23), “Ultimate career goal to work in
We compared standardized coefficients and showed as Table 3. The item “satisfaction with campus support” revealed the best explanation with β value of .28, followed with “relation with supervisor”(β =-.23). This indicates with the higher support from campus and less interaction with supervisor will intend to work as an employee in the government or public research institute.
Satisfaction with campus support, including peers interaction, learning experiences from curriculum, and program/university support, are crucial predictor variables for examining the intention of being government or public research institute employees while relation with supervisor is also a significant one. In Taiwan being a government employee whose mainly tasks are administrative work, even if the position is in public research institute, it still focused on policy study and administration-oriented tasks, so that the networking building and professional abilities related to the mission are emphasized. Under such circumstance, the relation with supervisor is less highlighted.
We compared standardized coefficients and showed as Table 3. The item “interactive knowledge ability” revealed the best explanation with β value of .23, followed with, “ultimate career goal to work in
It might occur to doctoral students who have more capability of interactive knowledge, satisfied with campus support and particular full time male ones with less intention to work in
The result demonstrates the interactive knowledge ability recognized by doctoral students, including networks and collaborations, project management, know how to teach others, and teamwork, are the key factors if they are willing to work in the private sector. Compared with the relation with supervisor and independent knowledge ability, it is obvious that satisfaction with campus support and enhancement of soft skills play a decisive and positive socialization factors to help doctoral students picturing their career map toward the private sector. This may differ this study from some scholars’ Kim, Benson, & Alhaddab, 2018) classification on doctoral students job preference via discipline. Instead, this study utilizes both interactive knowledge ability and independent knowledge ability to testify it. Nevertheless, what need to be further paid more attention from the survey is the cognition of the doctoral program. Due to the negative effect of the culture and climate of program and ultimate career goal to work in
Note 1: ** p < .01; * p < .05
We compared standardized coefficients and showed as Table 3. The item “satisfaction with campus support” revealed the best explanation with β value of.47, followed with “
Similar with Model
To sum up, socialization in this study doesn’t have enough explanation to above models. It might show some certain degree of correlation with the paths after receiving PhD, but all in medium to low correlation. One of the reasons that socialization has such weak prediction to career choices in Taiwan is probably because of doctoral programs are still organized by normal curricula and course schedule, not too many chances to interact with peers or conducting independent research. The other main cause may attribute to doctoral students’ pragmatic attitude to future job. Instead of spending time within the campus for network building, they would rather invest time and energy off campus for future connection. In other words, socialization in doctoral education may have its importance, but it will take time to be embedded into the process of education practice. Although previous studies (Anderson & Anderson, 2012; ; Gardner, 2012; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001) stress socialization having its effect on doctoral students career trajectories, this study finds out some inner factors, e.g., culture and climate of program, ability, and discipline, are more influential than socialization to doctoral students in terms of job preference.
Based on the findings, the career path for doctoral students is not only for teaching job in
First, attending postdoc program is a crucial predictor variable for choosing teaching job in
Second, the higher campus support is, the stronger job hopes of entering public or private sector will be. This shows the consistence result with Guo, Kang, & Shi (2018). Namely, supportive campus culture is influential to form academic socialization of doctoral students. Either acquiring curriculum knowledge or gaining support from peer and institution, socialization has its significant influence. In contrast, relation with supervisor doesn’t have any significance with the job hopes. Furthermore, it shows negative significance of entering public sector after completing doctoral study. Comparing to supervisor, campus support reveals more influence on doctoral students’ job selections. In order to move related empirical studies forward, this study provide evidence of the importance of structural and organizational aspects of the campus support to the students.
Third, interactive knowledge ability is the main predictor variable for doctoral graduates entering private sector or enterprise. This reflects employers’ need of professional capacity and also indicates the importance of cooperation, project planning, and positive attitude of interactions. Shin, Postiglione, & Ho (2018) and Auriol (2010) also argue doctoral education should be extending its scale of knowledge to fulfill various kinds of job market. However, what makes this study different from the others is the connection between doctoral student and supervisor. We have found the correlation between this two is not significant. The possible reasons might be: (1) good relation between students and supervisor made variation lower; (2) factors of socialization, career path, and job hope only reached medium to low correlation. After excluding few predictor variables in regression model, factors of socialization turned weak.
Last, in terms of socialization, different factors of socialization influence different perspectives of career plan. When it comes to academia oriented, individual predictor variables such as motivation, goal, and relation with supervisor have higher correlation with independent knowledge ability. In the contrast, when it comes to non-academia, campus support and interactive knowledge ability obviously influence students’ attitudes.
In conclude, applying for postdoc position, employed by
It is our concern to explore the factors influencing confidence of career path and job market via survey. We have found more satisfied with campus support and better ability of interactive knowledge will lead doctoral students more confident to make decision of choosing job. However,
We propose some directions for follow up studies in the future. First, this study mainly focuses on the socialization of doctoral students and its relations with career plan and employment. This will help us clarify the issue we concern and provide a transverse section picture of doctoral training. However, socialization is a long term and dynamic process (Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). If we could build up a longitudinal tracing mechanism from enrollment to graduation upon socialization, starting from some target universities, the analysis would be more focused.
Second, in terms of targeted sample, doctoral students’ training in Taiwan mainly rely on course work and supervisor. This process shares its similarity with East Asian countries, Japan, South Korea and China. Therefore, conducting a comparative study among those systems is a possible way to move further.
Though job market has been changing its landscape after marching into the new century, not much research explores the job classification of PhD holders. This study now has classified three types of job selection. It is highly expected to build further detailed classifications based on our findings.
Lastly, since postdoc researchers are likely transferred to