Read on Twitter
Most reports on PhD outcomes start with a version of this framing:
“The number of PhD graduates in Canada is growing while the number of open tenure-track positions is stagnant or declining.”
That framing distracts from some big, uncomfortable policy-relevant questions. 1/ https://twitter.com/ua_magazine/status/1354455373986467842
“The number of PhD graduates in Canada is growing while the number of open tenure-track positions is stagnant or declining.”
That framing distracts from some big, uncomfortable policy-relevant questions. 1/ https://twitter.com/ua_magazine/status/1354455373986467842
Q1: Do countries/jurisdictions with more PhDs see better economic and social performance? (e.g., more innovation, growth, better health, better social policy and outcomes).
Q2: If countries with more PhDs experience better economic and social outcomes, is it *because of* PhDs?
Does the causal arrow run PhdDs -> socio-economic outcomes, or the other way? Are PhDs the causal variable or a proxy/signal for something else?
Does the causal arrow run PhdDs -> socio-economic outcomes, or the other way? Are PhDs the causal variable or a proxy/signal for something else?
Q3: What exactly are the mechanisms through which PhDs affect aggregate economic and social outcomes (if they do)?
Lots of PhD reports involve understandable hand-waving about the “untapped potential” of PhDs. What’s the evidence the potential is real and how is it realized?
Lots of PhD reports involve understandable hand-waving about the “untapped potential” of PhDs. What’s the evidence the potential is real and how is it realized?
Q4: Is a PhD *required* to generate/capture the social and economic benefits? Are we under- or over-preparing grads for the contribution they have the potential to make?
Q5: Do firms face barriers (info, cost) to hiring/investing in PhDs and their potential or do they really know what they need/don’t need?
We know Canadian firms under-invest in R&D and ICT. Are PhDs a similar innovation investment omission or do firms know what they’re doing?
We know Canadian firms under-invest in R&D and ICT. Are PhDs a similar innovation investment omission or do firms know what they’re doing?
Q6: To what extent do the answers to these questions differ by field and sector?
People already convinced of the value of PhDs will bristle at these questions. Gross, crass, pedestrian discourse, right? On some days, I’m one of them.
But we need answers if we are to make better decisions about public funding for PhDs, transition programs, etc.
But we need answers if we are to make better decisions about public funding for PhDs, transition programs, etc.
Like many, I *believe* PhDs have enormous contributions to make to economic prosperity and social well-being, and that employers are underinvesting.
But I have a PhD in a social science. Beliefs don’t cut it. We need evidence and rigorous analysis to test hypotheses.
But I have a PhD in a social science. Beliefs don’t cut it. We need evidence and rigorous analysis to test hypotheses.
P.S. I worked on a report like this in 2014. We used the same incomplete, unfortunate framing. (In our defense, it was less fashionable back then).
I wanted to look at the questions above, but internal forces and external funders closed the door on that pretty quickly.
I wanted to look at the questions above, but internal forces and external funders closed the door on that pretty quickly.
P.P.S. I’ll do the work now if someone wants to fund it. Actually, I’ll get @creiglamb to do the heavy lifting while I develop conceptual frameworks
.
These are my alt-ac business development and delegation skills working at 20%.
.These are my alt-ac business development and delegation skills working at 20%.
This thread prompted by my reading yesterday of CCA's new report on PhD labour market outcomes. My initial reactions here: https://twitter.com/dk_munro/status/1354046141302767617?s=20
