More than half of PhD graduates do not pursue an academic career (ESF 2017; Hancocks 2020). At the same time, the role of highly qualified experts and research in the knowledge economy is stressed at national and international policy level (e.g. in relation to European Research Area). It raises discussions about the goals and content of PhD training and about the need to prepare PhD graduates for non-academic careers (Nerad 2015; Lee, Danby 2012).

It seems that PhD students and graduates feel rather less prepared for employment outside academia (ESF 2017; Vitae 2016; Gu, Lévin, Luo 2018). The PhD programs are criticized for “training academic successors rather than cultivating versatile and flexible experts” (Gu, Lévin, Luo 2018: 445). However, our knowledge about the usage of knowledge and skills gained throughout PhD study in non-academic careers is limited. The majority of studies are quantitative (Alfano, Gaeta, Pinto 2021; ESF 2017; Haapakorpi 2015; Hancock 2020; Gu, Lévin, Luo 2018; Parenti, Pinto, Sarno 2020; Manathunga, Pitt, Critchley 2009; Vitae 2016) and therefore bring information only about predetermined skills, not about the more complex evaluation of the PhD experience of PhD graduates in the context of their already pursued non-academic career. Mentioned studies also usually do not reflect disciplinary specifics or they focus on one field only with the dominance of studies from the STEM field (Alfano, Gaeta, Pinto 2021; Morettini, Primeri, Reale, Zinilli 2016; Parenti, Pinto, Sarno 2020). This is problematic because individual disciplines have specific interconnections to specific non-academic labor market areas (ESF 2017; Herrmann, Peine 2011) and also approach transferable skills in a specific way (Sandler 2013). For these reasons, we decided to approach the topic of the usage of PhD study experience in non-academic careers from the qualitative perspective and pay attention to the disciplinary differences. In our study we pose two main research questions: 1) what is the use of PhD study experience among people who pursue a non-academic career?; 2) are there any disciplinary differences in this use? The conference presentation will introduce the answers to these questions.

We framed our analysis by the concept of transferable competencies. However, it is a preliminary decision as our analysis is at the stage of “work in progress”. We reflect the Sandler´s (2013) critique of the decomposition of competence into contributing elements (skills/competencies) in the process of evaluation of study programs. Specifically, we reflect his point that such strategy may miss the holistic perspective and thus the “whole” picture of the profile of the graduates and also the problem with the delineation of specific skills as they can overlap.

The presented study is based on 45 in-depth narrative interviews (60-120 minutes) with individuals from various disciplines (6 women and 7 men from Social sciences and humanities field (SSH), 13 women and 19 men from Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field (STEM)) who have left an academic path in their doctoral or post-doctoral stage (up to 5 years after achieving PhD). Interviews were collected in 2013-2017. The interview scenario consisted of the questions about the individual´s way to the research discipline, to the PhD study and academic profession, about the consequent process of and reasons for the attrition, and about their current profession and career plans. The presented study focuses on the current profession of our research participants. We analyzed answers to these questions: “How do you use in your current job the knowledge and skills acquired during your PhD training?”; “Would you enter the PhD study again if you were once more in the situation of making this decision?”; “Could you compare your current job with your previous academic job?”. The analysis was based on principles of grounded theory (Charmaz 2006). Thus, we have selected an inductive approach and searched for participants´ descriptions and expressions of the meaning of specific skills and knowledge acquired during PhD study and used in the current non-academic jobs.

The abstract presents a work in progress. The analysis will be finished by the conference date. No disciplinary differences related to the use of PhD study experience in non-academic careers have been found. The reason behind this finding seems to lay in what participants declared to use in their non-academic careers. Mostly, they did not declare the use of theoretical knowledge but rather the use of “general professional” skills. We identified three groups of these skills: 1) analytical skills; 2) work approach; 3) practical skills. The first group covers the ability to formulate goals and to reach them by searching for the solutions to the problems based on their ability to synthesize information and embed them in a broader context. The second group represents the capability to finish the tasks thanks to the trained perseverance, patience, self-reliance, and responsibility. The third group comprises the ability to use specific research methods, do laboratory work, work with literature, write structured texts, and presentation skills. The evaluation of the use of PhD study experience was positive which leads to the positive retrospective evaluation of the whole decision to pursue a Ph.D. study and the declarations of “doing it again” if they should decide once more. Some of them would just consider choosing another academic workplace or try to avoid some mistakes reflecting their PhD experience. They felt unprepared for non-academic careers only in the field of leadership and project management. Regarding these findings, it is not possible to fully agree with the statement that PhD training does not cultivate versatile experts. It is also not possible to simply distinguish what is academic and what is a transferable skill as some skills which could be described as academic (e.g. writing) have practical usage in non-academic jobs.

Alfano, V., Gaeta, G., Pinto, M. (2021). Non-academic employment and matching satisfaction among PhD graduates with high intersectoral mobility potential. International Journal of Manpower. European Science Foundation (ESF). (2017). Career Tracking Survey of Doctorate Holders. Project Report. Gu, J., Levin, J.S., Luo, Y. (2018). Reproducing “academic successors” or cultivating “versatile experts”: influences of doctoral training on career expectations of Chinese PhD students. Higher Education, 76(3), 427–447. Haapakorpi, A. (2015). Doctorate holders outside the academy in Finland: Academic engagement and industry-specific competence. Journal of Work and Education, 30(1), 1-16. Hancock, S. (2020). The employment of PhD graduates in the UK: what do we know? Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/02/17/the-employment-of-phd-graduates-in-the-uk-what-do-we-know/ Herrmann, A., Peine, A. (2011). When ‘national innovation system’ meet ‘varietes of capitalism’ arguments on labour qualifications: On the skill types and scientific knowledge needed for radical and incremental product innovations. Research Policy 40, 687-701. Lee, A.; Danby, S. (2012). Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies. London and NewYork: Routledge. Manathunga, C., Pitt, R., Critchley, C. (2009). Graduate attribute development and employment outcomes: Tracking PhD graduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 91–103. Morettini L., Primeri E., Reale E., Zinilli A. (2016). Career Trajectories of Phd Graduates in the Social Sciences and Humanities. In: Sarrico C., Teixeira P., Magalhães A., Veiga A., Rosa M.J., Carvalho T. (eds) Global Challenges, National Initiatives, and Institutional Responses. Higher Education Research in the 21st Century Series. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. Nerad, M. (2015). Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?, Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 15. Parenti, B., Pinto, M., Sarno, D. (2020). Job Satisfaction Among Ph.D. Holders: How much do Regional Divides and Employment Sectors matter?. High Educ Policy. Sadler, D.R. (2013). Making Competent Judgments of Competence. In: Blömeke S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Kuhn C., Fege J. (eds) Modeling and Measuring Competencies in Higher Education. Professional and Vet Learning, vol 1. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. Vitae. (2016). What do research staff do next? Report 2016. Accessible from: https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/reports/vitae-what-do-research-staff-do-next-2016.pdf