Search results

Although an increasing number of PhD holders will continue their careers outside academia, we know little about their further career prospects. To develop a better understanding of how this group constructs and justifies a successful career outside academia, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 47 PhD graduates from different disciplines (humanities, social and beta sciences) who have obtained elaborate experience working outside academia.

Drawing on a multi-career perspective, we explored the motivations of the PhD holders when making such career transitions. The findings from the interviews demonstrated how PhD holders’ main motivations were associated with their perceived organizational, community and cognitive careers. Our data analysis revealed that these motivations related to PhD holders and can be grouped along four key tensions:

• distanced from real life (academia) versus appreciating the practical impact of their research (currently);

• competition and performance orientation (academia) versus enjoying their current multidisciplinary collaboration towards a common goal (current);

• Individualism and loneliness were typically experienced in academia versus autonomy and intellectual stimulation in their current work; and

• lack of stable career perspectives in academia versus current options for competence-based development and personal growth.

distanced from real life (academia) versus appreciating the practical impact of their research (currently);

competition and performance orientation (academia) versus enjoying their current multidisciplinary collaboration towards a common goal (current);

Individualism and loneliness were typically experienced in academia versus autonomy and intellectual stimulation in their current work; and

lack of stable career perspectives in academia versus current options for competence-based development and personal growth.

Thus, while discontinuation of an academic career may easily hold a pejorative connotation, the analysis of the PhD holders’ motivations revealed important and rewarding opportunities in pursuing a career in other sectors. Overall, from our study, we can conclude that while a major gap may exist between careers in academia and ‘the corporate world’, shifting careers between these worlds is not as ‘unthinkable’ as commonly believed.

Celebrate Michael Buckland's impressive legacy to LIS by showing his humanity, generosity and versatility.

This article is walk through a scientific career in LIS. Through personal anecdotes and life history and building upon Michael Buckland's legacy, it summarises the author’s own work seen through the prism of her interactions with Buckland, leading to scholarly contributions articulating significant statements about the field of LIS as well as pointers to past relevant publications.

Michael Buckland has a unique way of putting an end to thorny LIS issues as well as being a documentator extraordinaire.

It is a personal account, as such cannot be evaluated through the classical norms of empirical research as there is no ground truth. This account shows how chance encounters with fellow scholars can have a lasting influence on one's academic career as well as wider impact in a field.

PhD graduates are entering an increasing range of careers, but past research has highlighted a lack of preparation for these careers. This study aims to explore the reflections of PhD graduates from science and humanities and social science disciplines regarding support for career development (CD) during their study.

The authors used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design and collected 136 survey responses and interviewed 21 PhD graduates from two US and one New Zealand universities to investigate their career readiness. Using the lens of Cognitive Information Processing theory, the authors explored the development of self-knowledge and career options-knowledge, and how support at the macro (institutional), meso (departmental) and micro (supervisors) levels influenced CD.

During doctoral study, there was very poor engagement with CD activities. Graduates displayed limited self-knowledge and poor knowledge about career options. Graduates reported drawing mainly on their departments and supervisors for career guidance. Although there were pockets of good practice, some departments were perceived as promoting academia as the only successful outcome, neglecting to support other possible pathways. Some graduates reported excellent supervisor support for CD, but others described disinterest or a damaging response if students said they were not wanting to pursue academia.

The enabling aspects for developing self- and options-knowledge are collated into a conceptual model, which identifies key factors at institutional, departmental and supervisor levels, as well as for PhD students themselves.