Career Pathways and Perceptions of ASU Ph.D. Students and ...

1

Career Pathways and Perceptions of ASU Ph.D. Students and Alumni in the Humanities and STEM

Career Pathways and Perceptions of ASU Ph.D. Students and Alumni

in the Humanities and STEM

2


Sponsored by the Council of Graduate Schools through funding by

the National Science Foundation and Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

3




Cameron Bunker

Alfredo J. Artiles

Hongxia Fu

Jill Lemna

Amanda Athey

ASU Graduate College

4


Table of Contents

Table of Contents _____________________________________________________________ 4

Abstract _____________________________________________________________________ 5

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 6

Significance of the Problem ____________________________________________________ 7

Study Questions ______________________________________________________________ 8

Methods ____________________________________________________________________ 8

Sample ___________________________________________________________________________ 8

Data Collection Procedures __________________________________________________________ 8

Data Analysis Procedures __________________________________________________________ 10

Findings ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Ph.D. Students __________________________________________________________________________ 11

Where do PhD Students Want to Work? ___________________________________________________ 11 How Well are PhD Students Prepared for Multiple Career Pathways? ____________________________ 12 What are PhD Students’ Career Aspirations? ________________________________________________ 14

Alumni ________________________________________________________________________________ 16 Where Are Alumni Working? ____________________________________________________________ 16 How Well are Alumni Prepared for Multiple Career Pathways? _________________________________ 18 What are alumni views on their graduate program experiences? _________________________________ 22 How Have Alumni Career Aspirations Changed and What Triggered Those Changes? _______________ 24

Conclusions ________________________________________________________________ 25 Ph.D. Students __________________________________________________________________________ 25 Alumni ________________________________________________________________________________ 25

Recommendations ___________________________________________________________ 26

Program-level ____________________________________________________________________ 26

University-level ___________________________________________________________________ 27

References _________________________________________________________________ 28

Appendix A: Targeted Programs ________________________________________________ 29

5


Abstract

A doctoral education can lead to different career paths. While graduate programs at

Arizona State University (ASU) have invested in resources and offer some training opportunities

for a diverse job market, little is known about the actual career pathways, aspirations,

perceptions, and preparation of PhD students and alumni. We conducted a survey study with

ASU Ph.D. students (valid response rate = 41%) and alumni (valid response rate = 25%) (total

sample n = 1,607) on their desired/current careers, level of preparation, and career aspirations.

We included doctoral students and alumni from the Humanities and STEM programs. Findings

indicate that (1) many Ph.D. students and alumni reported desiring or having a career in the

private/not-for-profit sector, self-employment and higher education; (2) most students and

alumni reported being well-prepared well by their graduate programs on a variety of technical

and transferable skills, with the exception of grant writing; and (3) most alumni reported shifts in

career aspirations over time. We note similarities and differences across disciplines where

appropriate and highlight opportunities to improve graduate education at the program and

university levels.

6




Arizona State University’s (ASU) commitment to prepare graduate students for an

increasingly diverse job market is well established. For instance, this is reflected in the design

and implementation of professional development programs and doctoral training grants that are

responsive to changing career demands and opportunities. However, there is a dearth of evidence

about the career pathways of Ph.D. graduates across disciplines. This report explores the career

trajectories of doctoral degree graduates from various disciplines.

In 2017, the Graduate College expanded the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) professional

development program into the Preparing Future Faculty & Scholars (PFx) program. PFF was an

outgrowth of an initiative launched in 1993 between the Council of Graduate Schools and the

Association of American Colleges and Universities to prepare doctoral students for professions

in academe. Recognizing the shrinking job market in academia, the PFx program was designed

to address professional dispositions and skills needed to work inside and outside of academe.

More recently, PFx added professional development workshops (e.g., networking, teaching

portfolio) to reach a broader audience in the graduate student population.

ASU graduate training also houses programs funded by the National Institute of Health to

support career paths outside of academia. The T32 grant awarded to Dr. Laurie Chassin is one

such funding source that led to the creation of several graduate seminars aimed at preparing ASU

PhD students for both academic and non-academic careers. These commitments to expose ASU

students to multiple theoretical perspectives and practical applications widen their intellectual

curiosity, help them understand the diverse scope of innovation and ultimately dispel the

longstanding assumption that a career outside of academia is of less value than a tenure-track

faculty position (Sauermann & Roach, 2012).

The purpose of this research is to examine the role of interventions such as

interdisciplinary PhD programs and professional development opportunities like PFx and Dr.

Chassin’s seminars in the career pathways of ASU PhD students and alumni. Specifically, this

research examined where students want to work, how prepared they feel, and what were their

career aspirations. In tandem, this research examined what careers alumni tend to choose after

graduation, their perceptions of how ASU prepared them for their careers, if and how their career

aspirations have changed, and whether they are satisfied with their career paths. This study is

part of a broader project funded by the Council of Graduate Schools, the National Science and

Andrew W. Mellon Foundations that aims to understand the connections between career

aspirations, academic training, and PhD career outcomes and pathways in the Humanities and

STEM disciplines.

7


Significance of the Problem

This study addresses several knowledge gaps concerning the career pathways of ASU

PhD students and alumni. First, little is known about where ASU PhD alumni are working now.

Prior research shows that many PhD students were interested and did in fact choose careers

outside of academia (Roach & Sauermann, 2017; Sauermann & Roach, 2012). ASU graduate

education is aligned with this trend and thus, has increasingly focused on preparing students to

address the world’s most complex challenges. Thus, it is vital that we document the breadth of

PhD alumni’s career pathways that may have changed with this increased focus.

Second, there is a dearth of evidence about PhD students’ and alumni’s views on their

level of preparedness in their career choice and whether their perceptions shift over time. A

common issue among graduate programs is that there is adequate training for academic careers

but not for alternative careers such as in industry (McDowell et al., 2014). Whether this is the

case at ASU may reflect in student and alumni reports of how prepared they feel. In either event,

this evidence will afford key information on graduate programs’ strengths and areas in need of

improvement.

Third, we need to attain a deeper understanding of the influences and factors that trigger

shifts in career aspirations as PhD students progress through graduate programs and join the

workforce. Prior research suggests that career aspirations were not always stable (Etmanski,

2019; Roach & Sauermann, 2017). If career aspirations change over time, graduate programs

would be well-advised to prepare doctoral students for an ever-changing landscape of career

pathways.

Fourth, there is a need to document PhD students and alumni satisfaction with their

graduate education. Student and alumni perspectives on how their programs are

preparing/prepared them might change over time based on various experiences and factors. For

example, hyper-competition in academia via publication pressure or shrinking availability of

tenure-track jobs (Alberts et al., 2014) may affect student and alumni perceptions of preparation

differently. Thus, it is important to document student and alumni reflections on their graduate

preparation at ASU and obtain their advice for graduate training improvement based on personal

experiences.

Finally, little is known about whether factors related to career pathways vary between

students and alumni in Humanities vs. STEM programs at ASU. Prior research suggests that

STEM and Humanities vary on a range of factors not limited to content, such as demographics

and propensity toward innovation (Chang & ChangTzeng, 2020; Tsang, 2019). Previous studies

suggest that career pathways may vary across these disciplines as well (National Academy of

Sciences, 2014; Okahana and Kinoshita, 2018). As such, graduate programs at ASU may have

different strengths and areas of improvement depending on the discipline.

8


Study Questions

We conducted a three-year survey study with ASU PhD students and alumni in the

Humanities and STEM. We asked four questions:

1. Where would PhD students want to work and Where are PhD alumni working?

2. How well were PhD students and alumni prepared for a diverse range of possible

careers?

3. What are PhD students’ and alumni’s career aspirations?

4. What are PhD alumni views on their graduate program experiences?

We addressed these questions for the whole sample, by discipline (STEM and

Humanities), and by year in program or year after graduation.

Methods

Sample

Ph.D. Students

We targeted 2,878 PhD students in over 25 Humanities and STEM programs during the

2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 academic years (see Appendix A). The final sample was

comprised of 1,173 students, yielding a valid response rate of 41%.1

Alumni

One thousand seven hundred and two PhD alumni in the same disciplines were targeted

for the study during these three academic years. The final study sample included 434 alumni,

yielding a valid response rate of 25%.2

Data Collection Procedures

Ph.D. Students

For each of the three years of the study, students who were in their 1st, 2nd, or 5th year of

their program at the time of each data collection wave were contacted to fill out a survey

concerning their current career aspirations and their perceptions of their graduate training. The

survey covered the following three aspects.

1 By year, the student response rate for 2017-2018AY was 34%, 45% for 2018-2019AY, and 43% for

2019-2020AY.

2 Alumni response rates by year were 19% for 2017-2018AY, 31% for 2018-2019AY, and 24% during

2019-2020AY.

9


Career Paths. Participants reported their preference for different employment sectors

using a 5-point scale ranging from not preferred to preferred. We aggregated the sectors into the

following categories: higher education, government, K-12 education, or another sector.3

Graduate Program Preparation. Participants reported satisfaction with their graduate

preparation on technical areas and transferable skills (“How well did your graduate program

prepare you in the following knowledge, attributes, and behaviors?”) on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from very poorly to excellently. Students also reported their participation in 19 types of

professional development activities since starting their doctoral program that included

leadership; grant writing, project management, teaching preparation, quantitative literacy,

research ethics, entrepreneurship, communication, public speaking, multicultural competency,

digital literacy, social embeddedness, getting published, qualitative analysis, global engagement,

peer mentoring, collaborative or interdisciplinary research, and career development.

Career Aspirations. To assess career aspirations, PhD students reported how desirable

seven kinds of work activities were on a 5-point scale ranging from not desirable to desirable.

The activities were basic research—study directed toward gaining knowledge primarily for its

own sake; applied research—study directed toward gaining knowledge to meet a recognized

need; product development—using knowledge gained from research for the production of

materials, devices, and other products; management—managing or supervising people or

projects; professional services (e.g., health care, counseling, student affairs and advising,

financial services, legal services); teaching; or other (please specify).

Alumni

For each of the three years of the study, alumni who graduated either 3, 8, or 15 years

prior at the time of each data collection were contacted to fill out a survey concerning their

current careers and their perceptions of their graduate training. The survey covered the following

aspects.

Career Paths. Participants reported the sector that best described their employment. We

aggregated their responses in the same categories used in the student survey: higher education,

government, K-12 education, or another sector.4 Participants working in higher education also

3 The “higher education” sector comprised multiple types: research university, Master’s/regional

university, liberal arts college, community college, or other college or university system. The

“government” sector also included multiple responses: local, federal, or non-U.S. government. The

“other” sector covered the private and not-for-profit sectors, or self-employment.

4 The “higher education” sector was comprised of multiple types: research university, Master’s/regional

university, liberal arts college, community college, or other college or university system. The

“government” sector also comprised multiple options: local, federal, or non-U.S. government. The

“other” sector included the private and not-for-profit sectors.

10


reported employment arrangement, which we aggregated into temporary (fixed-term or project-

based), tenure-track (tenured, tenure-eligible), or other (e.g., staff position).5

Graduate Program Preparation. Participants reported satisfaction with their graduate

training preparation (“how well did you PhD in [field] from ASU prepare you for your current

job) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from poorly to extremely well. Participants also reported

their participation in various professional development activities/events while at ASU

(internship, international experience, study at another U.S. institution, coursework outside one’s

discipline, job material preparation program, or individual development plan). Alumni also

reported how useful their dissertation chair/faculty advisor was in supporting their career

aspirations while pursuing their PhD. Finally, participants rated how well their graduate

programs prepared them in a variety of domains using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from poorly

to extremely well. For example, demonstrate an understanding of subject area, develop new ideas

rooted in research, grant writing, communicate ideas in writing, and influence others.

Feedback on Graduate Programs. As an indirect measure of graduate program

satisfaction, alumni reported whether they would pursue a PhD again if they had to start over

using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely would not to definitely would. Participants

also rated the importance of various areas of graduate programs for future improvement. These

areas included degree program expectations development, career development through

transferable skills acquisition, professional support through academic or career mentoring,

academic support through community-building and resource connections outside the academic

department.

Career Aspirations. Participants were asked a free-response question: “How have your

career aspirations or career pathways changed from the time you started your PhD to where you

are now in your career, and what academic events or experiences triggered those changes?” We

coded participant responses for whether they reported career aspiration change or not, and in the

event of change, common types of triggers participants reported (e.g., personal reasons,

opportunities, etc.).

Data Analysis Procedures

The process for reporting the survey results undertook the steps of data cleaning, coding,

labelling, and/or variable transformations. Most answers in this study were cross tabulated to

capture any trends in answers among or between different subgroups of the population. The

broad subgroups were Humanities and STEM, and their definitions were based on CGS’s

5 Data for employment arrangement was only available for 2017-2019, as the Council of Graduate

Schools did not include these same survey items for the 2019-2020 year.

11


definition. The report presents the relevant findings of the sample, and does not present the

estimates of the population.

Findings

Ph.D. Students

Where do PhD Students Want to Work?

The most preferred careers were outside of higher education and government, as

indicated by the highest score in the “other sectors” comprised of private and not-for-profit

sectors and self-employment (see Table 1). Higher education was the next most preferred sector,

followed by K-12 education, then government. This suggests ASU PhD students may be aware

of the changing landscape of academic career paths and thus view non-academic careers in

industry as viable options.

Next, we examined these career preferences by discipline. In the Humanities, the most

preferred career sector was higher education, followed by K-12 education, private and not-for-

profit industries and self-employment, then government. These patterns changed slightly

depending on the year in the program. Specifically, we noted that, compared to 1st and 2nd-year

students, 5th-year doctoral students preferred a career in government, the private and not-for-

profit industries or self-employment. The preference for higher education stayed relatively

consistent over the years.

In STEM, participating students indicated the highest preferences for private and not-for-

profit industries or self-employment, followed by higher education, K-12 education, and

government. This pattern was consistent irrespective of year in the program. Notice that STEM

students’ ratings were lower than Humanities’ doctoral students. Moreover, STEM students’

ratings of higher education as an employment sector decreased over time. These are intriguing

patterns that invite further examination. It will be important to explore career preferences in

discussions with alumni – either through listening sessions, focus groups or in programming with

alumni panels.

12


Table 1.

How Desirable Different Employment Sectors Are to PhD Students?

Discipline

Employment Sector

Overall

Higher Education Government K-12 Education Other Sectors

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Humanities 3.93 0.88 2.05 1.10 2.75 1.33 2.77 0.91 2.89 1.26

1st Year 4.07 0.75 2.04 1.08 2.88 1.33 2.64 0.95 2.91 1.27

2nd Year 3.85 0.86 1.92 1.08 2.70 1.22 2.63 0.88 2.78 1.23

5th Year 3.94 1.03 2.27 1.18 2.86 1.52 3.14 0.85 3.06 1.30

STEM 2.97 0.96 1.53 1.09 2.69 0.88 2.93 0.90 2.48 1.11

1st Year 2.97 0.90 1.60 1.13 2.95 0.95 3.07 0.96 2.50 1.16

2nd Year 2.79 0.97 1.57 1.08 2.68 0.90 2.92 0.88 2.65 1.10

5th Year 2.56 0.95 1.43 1.03 2.53 0.79 2.85 0.89 2.35 1.06

Grand Mean 2.85 1.00 1.57 1.09 2.70 0.93 2.92 0.90 2.52 1.11

Note. Humanities n = 85. STEM n = 1000. Values in cells are on a 5-point scale ranging from not

preferred (1) to preferred (5). The higher education sector comprised research university,

Master’s/regional university, liberal arts college, community college, or other college or university

system. The government sector included local, federal, or non-U.S. government. The other sectors

included the private and not-for-profit sectors, and self-employment.

How Well are PhD Students Prepared for Multiple Career Pathways?

To examine how ASU’s graduate programs prepared PhD students for a diverse job

market, we obtained student reports of participation across 19 different professional development

activities which covered aspects of leadership, teaching, research, management, ethics, and

collaborations. Specifically, leadership; grant writing, project management, teaching

preparation, quantitative literacy, research ethics, entrepreneurship, communication, public

speaking, multicultural competency, digital literacy, social embeddedness, getting published,

qualitative analysis, global engagement, peer mentoring, collaborative or interdisciplinary

research, and career development. Students reported whether they had participated in the

activity both within their PhD program or at another ASU-sponsored institution event, thus the

maximum number of activities they could report was 38. We grouped participating students into

whether they had reported 0 (or did not respond to the question), 1-10, 11-20, or 21-34 activities

(see Table 2). Almost half of the participating students reported over 10 activities while at ASU.

13


Patterns of professional development participation were relatively consistent across the

disciplines. However, we noted that 5th-year Humanities students were more likely to report over

10 professional development activities than 1st and 2nd-year students. This pattern was not as

pronounced for STEM students.

Table 2.

PhD Student Participation in Professional Development Activities/Events

Number of Professional Development Activities Attended While

at ASU

Discipline 0 Activities/

No Response 1-10 Activities

11-20

Activities

21-34

Activities Grand Total

Humanities 17% (10) 47% (27) 34% (20) 2% (1) 100% (58)

1st Year 14% (2) 71% (10) 14% (2) 0% (0) 100% (14)

2nd Year 24% (7) 52% (15) 21% (6) 3% (1) 100% (29)

5th Year 7% (1) 13% (2) 80% (12) 0% (0) 100% (15)

STEM 17% (131) 48% (362) 31% (235) 4% (34) 100% (762)

1st Year 21% (32) 58% (86) 13% (20) 7% (11) 100% (149)

2nd Year 17% (68) 46% (181) 33% (132) 4% (14) 100% (395)

5th Year 14% (31) 44% (95) 38% (83) 4% (9) 100% (218)

Grand Total 17% (141) 47% (389) 31% (255) 4% (35) 100% (820)

Note. These data were available from years 2018-2020.

Ph.D. students also reported their satisfaction with the preparation for both technical and

transferable skills (see Table 3). Across disciplines, students felt most prepared to work

constructively with colleagues. Students also reported high levels of satisfaction related to

preparation on critically evaluating findings, applying research methodology, and demonstrating

an understanding of a subject area. We did note that one area of improvement was grant writing,

in which students reported the lowest ratings.

Student ratings were somewhat similar for Humanities and STEM students. However, we

did notice that STEM students reported lower rates of preparation on all but two technical

preparation areas: applying research methodologies and grant writing. It is possible that the

lower levels of STEM satisfaction with preparation correlate to their lower participation in

professional development experiences. In addition, Humanities students had higher levels of

satisfaction in transferable skills than their counterparts. Discussions with alumni (in focus

groups, listening sessions or through alumni panels) may help to explain what inhibits

satisfaction for STEM students.

14


Table 3.

PhD Student Ratings of Different Types of Preparation by Discipline

Options Humanities STEM Grand Total

Technical Preparation

* Applying research methodologies, tools,

etc. 3.69 3.75 3.74

* Demonstrating an understanding of

subject area 4.00 3.77 3.79

* Developing new ideas rooted in research 3.63 3.50 3.51

* Grant writing 2.51 2.60 2.59

Transferable Skills

* Communicating ideas in writing 3.72 3.46 3.48

* Communicating ideas in small group 3.84 3.58 3.60

* Critically evaluating findings 4.04 3.77 3.79

* Influencing others 3.78 3.51 3.53

* Working constructively with colleagues 4.16 4.02 4.03

Note. Humanities n = 56. STEM n = 749. These data were only available from the years 2018-2020.

Values are on a 5-point scale ranging from very poorly (1) to excellent (5).

What are PhD Students’ Career Aspirations?

Participating students reported the desirability of different career aspirations. We first

looked at trends across disciplines (see Figure 1). The most desirable aspirations included

applied research, product development, basic research, and teaching 1st-year students. The least

desirable were higher administration and professional services. We further noted that 5th-year

students tended to provide lower ratings than 1st-year students in all areas.

Next, we looked at trends by discipline. We noted a strong desire for teaching-focused

careers across the years among Humanities students (see Figure 2). Basic and applied research

careers were also highly desirable, particularly for 1st year Humanities students, and product

development and management followed in the ratings. We observed a fluctuating trend whereby

desirability dropped among 2nd-year doctoral students, but eventually increased among 5th-year

students in the areas of basic and applied research, product development, and professional

services. In contrast, desirability for higher administration increased over time.

15


Figure 1.

PhD Students’ Career Aspirations Across Disciplines by Year in Program (n = 1,117)

Figure 2.

Humanities PhD Students’ Career Aspirations by Year in Program (n = 88)

16


In regard to STEM students (see Figure 3), applied research and product development

received the highest ratings. Of note, these were higher than basic research and teaching,

suggesting that many STEM students aspire for careers that are outside of traditional academic

positions. Trends were relatively stable across years. Furthermore, in comparison to Humanities,

STEM students showed lower aspirations for higher administration and teaching careers.

Figure 3.

STEM PhD Students’ Career Aspirations by Year in Program (n = 1,030)

Alumni

Where Are Alumni Working?

The majority of alumni chose a career in higher education. However, over a third of the

participants choose a career in another sector (see Table 4). A majority of Humanities alumni

chose a career in higher education. This was especially the case for those who graduated eight

and 15 years prior compared to those who graduated in the preceding three years. This may

suggest that Humanities alumni are now more likely to choose alternative career pathways than

in the past.

Regarding STEM alumni, we observed similarities as well as differences with the

Humanities graduates. First, although the majority of STEM graduates chose higher education

careers, this group was not as substantial compared to Humanities alumni. Second, compared to

Humanities alumni, STEM participants graduating three years prior were not more likely to

17


choose a career outside the academy than those graduating eight and 15 years prior. It is

interesting that at a time when Humanities faculty positions are shrinking at the national level,

ASU Humanities graduates were more likely to choose an academic career than STEM

graduates.

Table 4.

Where Are Alumni Working?

Discipline

Employment Sector

Grand Total Higher

Education Government

K-12

Education

Other

Sectors

Humanities 81% (43) 11% (6) 0% (0) 8% (4) 100% (53)

3 Years 79% (22) 18% (5) 0% (0) 4% (1) 100% (28)

8 Years 83% (15) 6% (1) 0% (0) 11% (2) 100% (18)

15 Years 86% (6) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 100% (7)

STEM 63% (204) 12% (39) 1% (3) 24% (79) 100% (325)

3 Years 62% (99) 9% (14) 1% (1) 28% (45) 100% (159)

8 Years 61% (76) 17% (21) 1% (1) 22% (27) 100% (125)

15 Years 71% (29) 10% (4) 2% (1) 17% (7) 100% (41)

Grand

Total 65% (247) 12% (45) 1% (3) 22% (83) 100% (378)

Note. The “higher education” sector comprised research university, Master’s/regional university, liberal

arts college, community college, or other college or university system positions. The “government” sector

comprised local, federal, or non-U.S. government positions. The “other” sectors comprised the private

and not-for-profit sectors.

Finally, we examined Alumni career paths among those who chose a career in higher

education (see Table 5). Of primary interest is whether alumni reported tenured, tenure-track or

temporary positions. The majority of respondents reported either being tenured or in a tenure-

track position. This was especially the case for alumni who graduated eight or 15 years ago

compared to three years ago, suggesting that as careers progressed, alumni who chose higher

education careers did end up tenured. We noted that a third of Humanities alumni that graduated

three or eight years prior reported temporary positions, but two-thirds of alumni who graduated

15 years prior became tenured.

We identified similar trends for STEM alumni whereby the majority obtained tenure

among those who graduated 15 years prior, while fewer participating alumni reported temporary

positions. We do note that among those in the tenure-track, STEM alumni were more likely to

report being tenure-track than tenured compared to Humanities alumni.

18


Table 5.

Where Are Alumni Working in Higher Education?

Employment Arrangement

Grand Total

DISCIPLINE TENURE TRACK TEMPORARY

Other Tenured

Tenure-

Track

Fixed-

term

Project-

based

Humanities 26% (7) 15% (4) 26% (7) 0% (0) 33% (9) 100% (27)

3 Years 0% (0) 25% (3) 33% (4) 0% (0) 42% (5) 100% (12)

8 Years 33% (3) 11% (1) 33% (3) 0% (0) 22% (2) 100% (9)

15 Years 67% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 33% (2) 100% (6)

STEM 23% (23) 25% (25) 8% (8) 5% (5) 39% (39) 100% (100)

3 Years 0% (0) 36% (14) 10% (4) 8% (3) 46% (18) 100% (39)

8 Years 29% (12) 26% (11) 2% (1) 5% (2) 38% (16) 100% (42)

15 Years 58% (11) 0% (0) 16% (3) 0% (0) 26% (5) 100% (19)

Grand

Total 24% (30) 23% (29) 12% (15) 4% (5) 38% (48) 100% (127)

Note. Values are from years 2017-2019 only. Examples of “other” are administrator or staff positions.

How Well are Alumni Prepared for Multiple Career Pathways?

The majority of PhD alumni reported their program prepared them well for their careers

(see Table 6). This suggests that ASU programs across fields are providing adequate career

preparation for their doctoral students.

In terms of discipline patterns, although the majority of Humanities alumni reported their

graduate program prepared them well for their careers, different trends emerged depending on

how much time had passed since graduation. Specifically, Humanities alumni who graduated

three years prior had slightly more varied responses, with more reports of being “well” and

“poorly” prepared. For those who graduated eight years prior, more alumni reported being

“extremely” well-prepared, and none reported “poor” preparation. Finally, for those who

graduated 15 years prior, all reported being “well” or better prepared. These trends may suggest

that as Humanities alumni progress in their careers, they report better preparation, while some

recent graduates are more likely to express concerns about their preparation. The question arises,

however, as to whether alumni views on career preparation are declining in recent years due to

other factors (e.g., changes in the job market, composition of recent cohorts, program quality,

etc.).

19


Most STEM alumni also reported being prepared extremely or very well by their

program, while almost none reported poor preparation. Depending on the number of years since

graduation, a similar pattern to Humanities alumni reports emerged, where none of the STEM

alumni who graduated 15 years prior reported poor preparation. Reports of well or higher

preparation were relatively stable across the different graduation year groups. Also noteworthy is

the higher level of satisfaction from Humanities alumni.

Table 6.

How Well Do Graduate Programs Prepare Alumni?

Discipline

Preparation Rating

Grand Total Extremely

Well Very Well Well

Fairly

Well Poorly

Humanities 30% (16) 46% (25) 13% (7) 7% (4) 4% (2) 100% (54)

3 Years 25% (7) 43% (12) 18% (5) 7% (2) 7% (2) 100% (28)

8 Years 42% (8) 42% (8) 5% (1) 11% (2) 0% (0) 100% (19)

15 Years 14% (1) 71% (5) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (7)

STEM 31% (102) 34% (110) 21% (69) 11% (36) 2% (7) 100% (324)

3 Years 34% (54) 32% (50) 23% (36) 9% (14) 2% (3) 100% (157)

8 Years 27% (33) 35% (43) 20% (24) 15% (18) 3% (4) 100% (122)

15 Years 33% (15) 38% (17) 20% (9) 9% (4) 0% (0) 100% (45)

Grand

Total 31% (118) 36% (135) 20% (76) 11% (40) 2% (9) 100% (378)

Furthermore, we examined how prepared PhD alumni were based on their reports of

professional development program training (see Table 7). Participants reported if they attended

professional development programs such as internships, job material programs, coursework

outside their immediate discipline, study at another United States institution, individual

development programs, or international experiences. The majority of participants reported

attending 1-3 kinds of programs, while about a quarter of the alumni reported attending none of

the listed programs. A small group of alumni reported attending 4-6 programs. These results

suggest that the majority of ASU PhD alumni attended relatively few professional development

programs.

This pattern was consistent when examining the two disciplines. Although we note that

the majority attending 1-3 programs was more substantial for Humanities alumni, with over three

quarters in this range. Those attending none of the listed programs was less than a fifth of the

Humanities alumni.

20


For STEM alumni, although the majority of participants reported attending 1-3 programs,

the number of alumni attending none of the listed programs was slightly higher than the

Humanities groups. Taken together, this suggests that Humanities PhDs may be more willing or

feel the need to attend more professional development programs during their graduate programs.

Table 7.

Alumni Participation in Professional Development Programs

Number of Professional Development Programs Attended

While at ASU

Discipline None of the

Listed Programs

1-3 Programs 4-6 Programs Total

Humanities 17% (7) 79% (33) 5% (2) 100% (42)

STEM 27% (58) 67% (145) 6% (14) 100% (217)

Grand

Total

25% (65) 69% (178) 6% (16) 100% (259)

Note. Values are from the surveys administered in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years.

Finally, we examined alumni qualitative reports on the types of career aspiration support

their dissertation chairs provided. We identified nine types of support, which we organized by (a)

motivational/skills training support, (b) career support, or (c) lack of support (see Figure 4). The

most common responses were that faculty were supportive role models, helped develop the

alumni aspirations, and provided research guidance. Very few participants indicated that their

faculty advisor was not supportive. We did note, however, that 13% of participants reported not

having a helpful advisor. While this percentage is relatively small, it may suggest an opportunity

for improvement for ASU graduate education.

In comparing the disciplines, while many Humanities alumni reported a supportive

advisor, they were less likely to report both motivational/skills training and career support. On

the other hand, STEM alumni were more likely to report having an unhelpful advisor than

Humanities alumni. The recent formation of the Graduate Faculty Mentor Academy provides an

opportunity to develop training for faculty on mentorship that could contribute to address some

of these issues. Continuous assessment of graduate student advising and mentoring will be an

additional focus of this body of experts.

21


Figure 4.

Types of Dissertation Chair/Supervisor Career Aspiration Supports Provided

to Alumni by Discipline

Note. Percentages were based on the total number of responses: Grand total n = 299; STEM n = 245;

Humanities n = 54.

Next, we examined Humanities and STEM alumni satisfaction with training on technical

and transferable skills (see Table 8). Humanities alumni reported high levels of both technical

preparation and transferable skills. Particular strengths of Humanities preparation included

demonstrating an understanding of subject areas and communicating ideas in writing. We do

note that grant writing is a potential weakness of Humanities preparation.

For STEM alumni, reports were similarly high for both technical preparation and

transferable skills. The strengths of STEM preparation were applying research methodologies,

and tools, and critically evaluating findings. The reports suggest that grant writing may also be

an avenue of improvement for STEM programs, given somewhat low reports—although they

were not as low as the Humanities alumni.

In comparing disciplines, two significant differences appeared between Humanities and

STEM alumni. STEM alumni reported more preparation in grant writing, while Humanities

Motivational/Skill training support Career support No support

22


alumni reported greater satisfaction with preparation in communicating ideas in writing. These

rating trends suggest potential improvement areas for each discipline.

Table 8.

How Well Graduate Programs Prepared Alumni by Discipline

Options Humanities STEM Overall Mean

Technical Preparation

* Apply research methodologies, tools, etc. 4.10 4.19 4.12

* Demonstrate an understanding of subject

area 4.13 4.11 4.12

* Develop new ideas rooted in research 3.84 3.74 3.76

* Grant writing 2.11 2.81 2.71

Transferable Skills

* Communicate ideas in writing 4.13 3.79 3.84

* Communicate ideas in small groups 3.98 3.7 3.74

* Critically evaluate findings 4.11 4.33 4.3

* Influence others 3.18 3.16 3.16

* Work constructively with colleagues 3.52 3.77 3.73

Note. Means by discipline are reported in each cell. Values were on a 5-point scale ranging from very

poorly (1) to extremely well (5).

What are alumni views on their graduate program experiences?

As an indirect measure of satisfaction with their graduate programs, alumni rated whether

they would be willing to pursue a PhD program again if they had to start over. In general, the

vast majority of alumni said they definitely or probably would do it (see Table 9). This suggests

that most ASU alumni had a high satisfaction level with their graduate programs.

By program type, the majority of Humanities alumni reported they definitely or probably

would pursue a PhD again, while roughly a quarter reported they would not. By year, Humanities

alumni who graduated either three or 15 years prior reported the highest percentages of

willingness, noting that almost half of the alumni graduating three years prior and over half of

those graduating 15 years prior reported they definitely would. Nevertheless, the majority of

those graduating eight years prior reported either probable or definite willingness, with roughly a

third of this group in either of those choices. We also note that none of the Humanities alumni

who graduated 15 years prior reported they definitely or probably would not be willing to pursue

a PhD again.

23


Compared to Humanities alumni, an even larger majority of STEM alumni said they

definitely or probably would be willing to pursue a PhD again. Responses depending on whether

STEM alumni graduated three, eight, or 15 years prior were more consistent than for the

Humanities. Although we note that, like the Humanities, STEM alumni who graduated 15 years

prior were more likely to report that they definitely would be willing to pursue a PhD again; and

none at all in this group said they definitely would not.

Taken together, these results suggest that STEM alumni were more likely to believe that

pursuing a PhD was a good decision for their career than Humanities alumni. Nevertheless, as

ASU alumni from both disciplines progressed in their careers, they were more likely to believe

that they made the right decision.

Table 9.

Alumni Willingness to Pursue a PhD Again if Starting Over

Degree of Willingness

Discipline Definitely

Would

Probably

Would Indifferent

Probably

Would

Not

Definitely

Would

Not

Grand Total

Humanities 44% (26) 29% (17) 5% (3) 14% (8) 8% (5) 100% (59)

3 Years 45% (14) 26% (8) 6% (2) 13% (4) 10% (3) 100% (31)

8 Years 38% (8) 33% (7) 0% (0) 19% (4) 10% (2) 100% (21)

15 Years 57% (4) 29% (2) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (7)

STEM

53%

(177)

31%

(104) 4% (15) 8% (28) 4% (13) 100% (337)

3 Years 51% (86) 28% (47) 7% (12) 9% (16) 5% (8) 100% (169)

8 Years 52% (63) 37% (45) 0% (0) 7% (9) 4% (5) 100% (122)

15 Years 61% (28) 26% (12) 7% (3) 7% (3) 0% (0) 100% (46)

Grand

Total

51%

(203)

31%

(121) 5% (18) 9% (36) 5% (18) 100% (396)

Moreover, alumni offered advice regarding the improvement of faculty mentoring and

graduate training (see Table 10). Although Humanities alumni were slightly more likely to report

advice for all types, it is noteworthy that patterns were consistent across Humanities and STEM

alumni. The most common responses were a greater emphasis on transferable skills acquisition

and more professional support through academic or career mentoring. Less common responses

were greater emphasis on academic support through community and resource connections

outside one’s department and degree program expectations development.

24


Table 10.

Alumni’s Advice on Program Improvement

Humanities STEM Grand Total

Career development through

transferable skills acquisition 76% (41) 73% (233) 74% (274)

Professional support through

academic or career mentoring 76% (41) 70% (222) 71% (263)

Academic support through

community-building and resource

connections outside your academic

department

65% (35) 54% (173) 56% (208)

Degree program expectations

development 54% (29) 40% (127) 42% (156)

Other 48% (26) 41% (129) 42% (155)

Total Number of Respondents 100% (54) 100% (318) 100% (372)

Note. Each cell indicates the total percentage and frequency of respondents that indicated each advice

type, by discipline or overall. Participants could report more than one advice type.

How Have Alumni Career Aspirations Changed and What Triggered Those Changes?

We analyzed how the career aspirations of ASU PhD alumni changed over time and why.

Eight types of triggering reasons were identified which were grouped into three categories,

namely opportunity triggers, negative reasons, or no reasons or changes provided (see Figure 5).

Overall, the majority of alumni reported change, with only a third reporting no substantial

variations. Out of those that changed aspirations, most triggers were opportunistic, with career

opportunities and interest change being the most common. However, we did note that the third

most reported trigger was an unfavorable environment.

Although patterns were similar between STEM and Humanities Alumni, we found that

Humanities alumni were less likely to report substantial change in career aspirations. STEM

alumni may be more likely to seek change in their careers, while Humanities alumni may feel

they have to stay on their initial career pathways and aspirations. It is not clear whether these

patterns are related to alumni’s level of commitment or identification with their discipline or

field or whether these differences are mediated by the opportunities offered by these disciplines.

25


Figure 5.

Triggers of Career Aspiration/Pathway Changes

Note. Percentages are based on valid responses: Grand Total n = 297; STEM n = 246; Humanities n = 51.

Conclusions

Ph.D. Students

• The most preferred careers for doctoral students, particularly in STEM, were outside of

academia. Humanities students, on the other hand, prioritized higher education careers.

• Most ASU PhD students felt their graduate program prepared them for a diverse job

market through a variety of professional development activities, though some students

indicated seldom participating in these activities.

• Doctoral students felt most prepared to work constructively with colleagues. The area

that must be improved was grant writing. Compared to STEM students, Humanities

Ph.D. students were more satisfied with their preparation on transferable skills.

• Humanities and STEM PhD students at ASU diverged in their specific career

aspirations. Humanities students indicated a higher preference for higher administration

and teaching-focused careers, while STEM students had a higher preference for applied

research and product development.

Alumni

• Although most ASU PhD Alumni chose careers in higher education—particularly in the

Humanities—a substantial number of alumni are in non-academic positions. Out of those

choosing a higher education career, most alumni report being tenured/in a tenure-track

position by 15 years after graduation.

26


• The majority of PhD alumni reported feeling “well prepared” for their careers, having

attended at least one professional development event while in graduate school, and

positive support from their faculty advisor—Humanities alumni reported lower levels of

support compared to STEM alumni. However, some PhD alumni, particularly those from

STEM programs, felt their advisor was unhelpful in supporting career aspirations.

Moreover, more recent graduates from both disciplines tended to report lower levels of

satisfaction.

• Most PhD alumni believe pursuing a doctoral degree was a good decision for their

careers—although the results suggested this is more the case for STEM alumni than those

graduating from Humanities programs.

• The majority of PhD alumni reported changes in their career aspirations, particularly

those from STEM fields. Although the reasons for these changes were mostly reported as

opportunistic, some negative reasons were reported such as unfavorable program climate

conditions.

• Ph.D. alumni recommended graduate programs place greater emphasis on transferable

skills acquisition and offer greater support through academic or career mentoring.

Recommendations

Program-level

• Introduce discussions (and possibly experiences) about the multiplicity of career

pathways into professional development programming. Awareness and understanding of

non-academic career pathways need to be enhanced, particularly in Humanities programs

since these students prioritized the higher education sector.

• Provide greater access to professional development activities to enrich career preparation.

Promote and integrate activities into curricula as possible keeping in mind the specific

interests and aspirations that students in these disciplines reported.

• PhD student and alumni reported issues with their graduate preparation related to

advising and mentoring. Provide and promote training for faculty in effective practices in

these two areas.

• Build and/or refine career development models with program alumni that will offer

feedback loops to graduate faculty and training opportunities for PhD students.

• Because career aspirations shift over time, faculty must encourage doctoral students to

start developing career awareness early in their programs and monitor their development

through an individual career development plan that is offered in professional

development courses in the Graduate College (e.g., PFx seminar).

27


University-level

• Refine the infrastructure for the systematic collection of information regarding graduate

student aspirations and career outcomes and share data with programs. Some units have

robust data collection systems that are used with their doctoral students and alumni (e.g.,

The College). The Graduate College can lead efforts to develop integrated data collection

systems that benefit all graduate students.

• Develop an inventory of training and professional development resources across units

(including Knowledge Enterprise) to identity effective models focused on transferable

skills and grant writing.

• Build faculty capacity on mentoring and career development for doctoral students using

Graduate College and other resources. For instance, the Career Navigators program in the

Graduate College offers self-assessment and training to build individual career

development plans. The Mentoring Academy can also advance this agenda through the

publication of Best Practice briefs and the organization of mentoring networks across

units.

• Coordinate efforts with Career and Professional Development Services to leverage the

resources of the Graduate College and other units and advance career development

systems for doctoral students.

28


References

Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., and Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical

research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 111(16), 5773-5777.

Chang, D. F., and ChangTzeng, H. C. (2020). Patterns of gender parity in the humanities and

STEM programs: the trajectory under the expanded higher education system. Studies in

Higher Education, 45(6), 1108-1120.

Etmanski, B. (2019). The prospective shift away from academic career aspirations. Higher

Education, 77(2), 343-358.

McDowell, G. S., Gunsalus, K. T., MacKellar, D. C., Mazzilli, S. A., Pai, V. P., Goodwin, P. R.,

Walsh, E. M., Robinson-Mosher, A., Bowman, T. A., Kraemer, J., Erb, M. L.,

Schoenfeld, E., Shokri, L., Jackson, J. D., Islam, A., Mattozzi, M. D., Krukenberg, K. A.,

and Polka, J. K. (2014). Shaping the future of research: a perspective from junior

scientists. F1000Research, 3, 291.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine

(2014). The postdoctoral experience revisited. National Academies Press: Washington,

DC.

Okahana, H., and Kinoshita, T. (2018). Closing gaps in our knowledge of PhD career pathways:

how well did a humanities PhD prepare them? Washington, DC: Council of Graduate

Schools.

Roach, M., and Sauermann, H. (2017). The declining interest in an academic career. PLoS

One, 12(9), e0184130.

Sauermann, H., and Roach, M. (2012). Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and

advisor encouragement. PloS One, 7(5), e36307.

Tsang, T. L. (2019). A quantitative analysis examining differences between US humanities and

STEM students’ propensity toward innovation. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, 43(2), 149-165.

29


Appendix A: Targeted Programs

Humanities

English (Literature)

English (Writing, Rhetoric, and Literacies)

History

Philosophy

Spanish

Physical Sciences

Astrophysics

Chemistry

Geological Sciences

Physics

Math and Computer Science

Applied Mathematics

Business Administration (Computer/Information Systems)

Computer Science

Statistics

STEM

Anthropology

Biochemistry

Biology

Biomedical Informatics

Counseling Psychology

Engineering

Aerospace

Civil, Environmental and Sustainability

Computer (Systems)

Construction Management

Electrical

Material Sciences

Mechanical Engineering Systems

Molecular and Cellular Biology

Psychology

Psychology (Quantitative Research Methods)

PO Box 871003

Tempe, AZ 85287-1003

480.965.3521

graduate.asu.edu

Career Pathways and Perceptions of ASU Ph.D. Students and ...

Documents

Transcript of Career Pathways and Perceptions of ASU Ph.D. Students and ...