名古屋高等教育研究 第 15 号 （2015）

Professional Development for Doctoral Students:
What is it? Why Now? Who does it?
Maresi NERAD*＜Abstract＞
Today, governments worldwide want world-class research capacities in order to attract investment and create new jobs. In thiscontext, the next generation of researchers needs more than
traditional research skills. They need to prepare themselves to workin many sectors of society post‒PhD. Therefore, in addition toacquiring traditional research skills, doctoral students also need toformulate clear career goals, be introduced to a variety of academic
and non-academic career possibilities, and learn skills needed for
managing post-PhD careers. They need to become versatile andequipped with transferable and translational competencies. Sets ofworkshops or training programs for doctoral students, known as“professional development,” are aimed at helping these students
transition into professional careers.
This article focuses on the development and definitions of professional development in the US, Europe, and Australia, provides
existing empirical evidence of the need of such competence training,presents a conceptual approach of integrating the additional skills
into current doctoral education, and describes the central role
graduate schools can play in such a training component.

1．Introduction
In today’s globalized economy, the emphasis on innovation is stronger
than ever before. Now governments and research funding agencies expect
Director, Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education,
Professor, University of Washington(Visiting Associate Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education,
Nagoya University)285

the next generation of PhD students to be innovators and problem solvers.
They also expect post-PhD researchers to work in many areas of society.
In addition to academic research competencies, post-PhD researchers are
now expected to possess professional skills that ensure effective dissemination of research and application within and beyond academia.

They arealso expected to acquire cultural competencies for working with andsucceeding in multinational teams and settings.
How can doctoral students acquire all of the competencies that are now
deemed necessary, in order to succeed post-PhD? How can doctoral
students, their advisors, and their doctoral program staff and professors
work together to achieve such a comprehensive goal? What can be done at
the university level to prepare doctoral students to find employment insideand outside academia?
In this article, as elsewhere, I argue that PhD-level education and training
requires purposeful restructuring that allows for transformative doctoral
education.

A Nigerian proverb taught us that “it takes a village to educate

a child;” and I argue that it takes a global village to develop tomorrow’s
PhDs (Nerad 2012). This is especially prevalent in today’s global economy,
which demands a labor market of highly trained professionals. The
proposed restructuring of doctoral education will take coordinated efforts
at many levels, including within the university setting, as well as withnational professional associations, and international conferences andinternships. Most importantly, this restructuring also requires change at
the micro-level; both doctoral students and their professors need tounderstand the importance of acquiring professional skills.

With support

from their professors, doctoral students need to actively seek out andpursue professional development opportunities throughout their doctoral
studies.
This article will address the following questions:
What constitutes professional development for doctoral students?
・ How did professional development for doctoral students develop
in the US, Australia, and Europe?
・ What empirical evidence exists for the need and usefulness ofprofessional development?

286

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

・ What conceptual approaches for an extended doctoral education
exist?
・ At what time during a doctoral student’s education should
professional development be offered?
・ Who should initiate and coordinate professional developmenttraining?
・ What programmatic models exist for professional development?
Examples from the US, Australia, and Europe will be provided toanswer these questions. The article will end by discussing the challenges
professional development programs at the doctoral level face.

2．Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What Is It?
2.1

Definitions

A review of relevant literature from the US, Australia, and Europe
reveals that there is not a uniform definition for professional development
for doctoral students. The terms “skills” and “competencies” are usedinterchangeably in relevant literature. However, these terms have two
distinct definitions. A skill is something “learned in order to…carry out
one or more job functions” (see also Talentalign 2012). A competency
incorporates a skill, “but [is] more than the skill”; a competency “include[s]abilities and behaviors, as well as knowledge that is fundamental to the useof a skill.” 1) In the context of professional development, the terms“transferable skills,” and more recently, “translational skills,” appear mostoften. Transferable skills are generic professional competencies “equallyapplicable in all professional settings” (Bernstein et al. 2014: 13). In otherwords, transferable skills learned in the academic sector can be used, ortransferred, in other employment sectors. Translational skills is a term
borrowed from the medical sector that refers to a skill set needed totranslate academic research into societal applications. A PhD researcher
uses translational skills to maximize the impact of research.

287

2.2

United States

Most often the term “professional development” is used in the US(Bernstein et al. 2014, Bernstein 2011, Solem 2008, Nyquist 2002, Feetham,n.d.) and refers to seminars and workshops that focus on the transition
from PhD student to practicing professional. Such programs include:・ learning to recognize the transferabilityof skills gained in

doctoral studies (from academic research to a variety of contexts),
・ preparing for activities and tasks beyond disciplinary scholarshipand academic research, and・ developing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills required tosuccessfully manage any kind of post-PhD career, including thehabit of self-assessment.
The Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE)
at the University of Washington, Seattle defines “professional development
programs” as initiatives that help students formulate clear career goals
and connect with a variety of academic and non-academic career
possibilities, as well as offer education skills training needed for managing
post-PhD careers (Rudd, E., Nerad, M., Emory, M., and Picciano, J. 2008).
The skills’ list CIRGE emphasizes as part of professional development
programs include:・ ability to communicate complex research findings to diverse
audiences,
・ ability to work in interdisciplinary contexts,
・ ability to apply knowledge in commercially viable, socially
responsible, and ethical ways, and・ ability to take on leadership roles in knowledge-rich environments
within complex organizations (Bartelse and Huisman 2008, Enders
2004, Nerad 2008, Nyquist 2002, NSF 2000).
These skills fall into two basic categories: development of skills andhabits needed to complete a PhD, and training that prepares students to“engage in possibilities beyond the discipline” (Feetham, n.d.).

CIRGE

distinguishes between PhD-completion skills from professional skills.

PhD-completion skills are those competencies and skills traditionallyconsidered central in PhD education, such as analytical skills, writing and

288

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

publishing (acquired during the course of fulfilling essential PhD requirements), and skills developed in the normal course of mastering specialized
knowledge and contributing to original research. Professional skills are
skills that are not traditional byproducts of completing a PhD.

These

include teamwork, communication to lay people, managing people andbudgets, as well as competencies in personal effectiveness, career
management and self-promotion.
2.3

Australia2)

Key concepts connected with professional development in Australia
incorporate the full array of skills that ensure success while earning a PhD
as well as helping transition post-PhD researchers to professional careers.
Relevant Australian literature and official governmental documents use
terms such as “generic,” “generic capabilities,” “graduate attributes,” and“transferrable” skills. This literature does not distinguish between skills
traditionally seen as necessary to complete a PhD and skills that focus
mostly on career development outside of academia (Manathunga andWissler 2003, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research, andTertiary Education 2012, Ward 2013). The Australian Qualifications
Framework (AQF), a national policy regulating qualifications in Australianeducation and training, identifies core skills that doctoral degree holders
should possess. These skills include:・ specialized cognitive, technical and research skills in a specificdiscipline area that enable researchers to independently andsystematically engage in critical reflection, synthesis andevaluation,
・ ability to develop, adapt, and implement research methodologies
to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional
practice,・ ability to disseminate and promote new insights to peers and thecommunity, and・ ability to generate original knowledge and understanding to makea substantial contribution to a discipline or area of professional
practice (Australian Qualifications Framework Council 2013: 63).

289

Other Australian authors, as in the case of a recent dissertation, refer to“professional development” as training for skills that employers state theywould like post-PhD researchers to have (Ward 2013, Boud and Lee 2009).
2.4

Organization of Economics Co-operation and Development

The Organization of Economics Co-operation and Development (OECD)published a report in 2012 with the results of a survey on the transferable
skills that today’s researchers should possess. This report defines“transferable skills” as skills beyond the core competencies that apply in a
broad variety of work situations. Results state:
Researchers today need skills relating to communication, problemsolving, team-working and networking, and business and management
know-how. These [skills] give [researchers] workplace competencies thatare relevant for a broad job market, although the skills they need may varyin different sectors . . . Formal transferable skills training is one way toachieve these competencies (OECD 2012: 9).
2.5

EuropeIn Europe, the term “professional development” for doctoral students isused by the European Alliance on Research Career Development(EARCD).
2.5.1

European Alliance on Reaserch Career Development

EARCD is a forum of experts from 21 national research fundingorganizations is affiliated with the European Science Foundation (ESF). It
defines professional development for doctoral students as:a structured approach to the continuous development ofresearchers’ knowledge, expertise and attributes at all stages of
their career to improve their competencies, employability andability to pursue multiple careers paths. This [professional
development] may be achieved by a variety of activities, whether
formal and structured, or informal and self-directed (ESF 2012:
10).

290

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

2.5.2

European Commission

The European Commission identifies a full array of competencies that a
PhD recipient and post-PhD researcher should possess in its report,

Towards a European Framework for Research Careers, as does theAustralian government.

The list of identified skills includes:

・ demonstrated, systematic understanding of a field of study andmastery of research associated with that field,
・ demonstrated ability to conceive, design, implement and adapt a
substantial program of research with integrity,
・ demonstrated contribution through original research that extends
the frontier of knowledge by developing a substantial body of work,
innovation or application,
・ demonstrated critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new andcomplex ideas,
・ demonstrated ability to communicate with peers, specifically to
explain the outcome of his/her research and value thereof to theresearch community,
・ demonstrated ability to co-author papers at workshops andconferences, and・ demonstrated ability to take ownership for and manage his/her
own career progression, to set realistic and achievable career goals,
and to identify and develop ways to improve employability (ESF
2011).
“Professional development,” as defined earlier, is encompassed in the lastcompetency identified by the European Commission in its 2011 report.
The European Commission proposes “active support of researchers/
doctoral students and postdocs to build up sustainable career[s]” in many
sectors of the labor market” (ESF 2011). To achieve this end, the European
Commission identifies that the following skills be acquired:・ Communication/dialogue with non-technical audiences (public
engagement),
・ Project and time management,
・ Research management and research leadership,
・ Enterprise skills

291

(entrepreneurship, commercialization, innovation, patenting andknowledge transfer),
・ Understanding of the use of science in policy making,・ Problem solving,・ Negotiation,
・ Networking,・ Grant writing and application submissions, and・ Career planning.
2.5.3

The League of European Research Universities

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) is an associationof 21 leading, research-intensive universities in Europe.

In a LERU paper

published in January 2014, lead author David Bogle wrote: “a very
important part of any doctoral program” is presenting a wide range of“possible career opportunities for doctoral graduates.” One example
support is helping doctoral students identify and develop the specific skills
they may need for the career options they plan to pursue (LERU, Advice
Paper 2014).
2.6

United Kingdom

The Research Development Framework (RDF) in the United Kingdom
was developed by VITAE in 2009 as a result of the 2008 Concordat toSupport Career Development of Researchers, which was issued by UK
Ministry of State for Science and Innovation. This framework combines
training for the development of traditional academic skills with training
for career development. The RDF structures this framework into fourdomains:・ knowledge, intellectual abilities, and techniques necessary to
conduct research,・ personal qualities and approaches to be an effective researcher,knowledge of the professional standards and requirements to
conduct research, and・ knowledge and skills necessary to work with others to maximize
the impact of the research undertaken (VITAE 2008).

292

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

Institutions in the United Kingdom are encouraged to implement
opportunities for “Personal Development Planning,” which offers graduate
students and postdoctoral scholars guidance for self-reflection on bothdisciplinary and personal development, as developed by the RDF.
2.7

Differences among Countries

As noted above, definitions of professional development vary by country.
These differences can be attributed to the different historical developmentof the process and structure of how doctoral students are educated in North
America, Australia, and Europe.
From the late 19th century on, doctoral students in the US studied within
structured programs.

In contrast, it was the tradition in Germany and in

most of Europe from the 18th century on to create new knowledge by
working individually under the supervision of a professor.

Australia and

New Zealand adopted this European tradition when it began offering
doctoral degrees in the late 1940s3).
The demarcation of doctoral education in structured programs or
unstructured doctoral education has become blurred in Europe, Australia,
and New Zealand over the last fifteen years. National research funding
agencies have designed calls for grant programs that focus specifically on
doctoral education with some structured components. Following thesegovernment calls, research universities changed their traditionally
unstructured doctoral education by incorporating structured components.
With grant funding from these national research agencies, universities
supported new doctoral programs similar to Japan’s Leading Programs in
Doctoral Education.
A review of relevant research indicates that doctoral education inAustralia and Europe was usually learned through a master-apprenticeprocess of conducting research. Doctoral coursework in these countries
was usually limited to learning research methods and techniques. Today inEurope, Australia, and New Zealand, there is a growing emphasis in
doctoral programs for students to learn generic and transferable skills, withthe result of an increase in stand-alone courses and workshops.
What was the catalyst for worldwide change in doctoral education? What293

external and internal forces enticed universities to shift doctoral education,and to include training beyond the reproduction of the professoriate?

3．What Led to the Emergence of Professional Development for
Doctoral Students?
The onset of professional development for doctoral students in the US
can be traced back to the National Academies Committee on Science,
Engineering and Public Policy of 1995. This Committee revealed that
doctoral students were ill prepared for professional work beyond
undertaking research (COSEPUP 1995). Three years later in 1998, theAustralian government required all Australian universities to provide
statements of the attributes expected of their graduates from all degree
programs, including doctoral degrees. Seven years later in 2005, theEuropean Commission in the European Charter of Researchers stated thatcareer development of researches must be assured (EC 2005).
What has happened that PhD graduates were expected more and more
to make effective contribution outside academia?

A World Bank reportin 2000 states:
Participation in the knowledge economy requires a new set ofhuman skills. People need higher qualifications and [the capacityfor] greater intellectual independence . . . Without improved
human capital, countries will inevitably fall behind and experience
intellectual and economic marginalization and isolation (Task
Force on Higher Education and Society 2000: 22, Bernstein et al.
2014: 8).
3.1

Globalization in the Context of Doctoral Education4)

In today’s global economy, knowledge is viewed as a critical national
resource, and theories about the so-called “knowledge economy” areembraced by governments worldwide. These theories argue thatknowledge is crucial to national economic growth and increased prosperity,and they identify the cause of economic growth as novel ideas leading toscientific, technical, organizational, environmental, or health innovations

294

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

(Nerad 2012, Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). Innovations and technicalchanges sustain a country’s international competitiveness. As theories
about the knowledge economy spread around the world, many national
governments have turned to graduate education and postdoctoral
preparation as a way of educating innovators for many sectors of society.
As a result, doctoral education and academic research have become
global endeavors encouraged and financially stimulated not only by nations
but also by supranational organizations, such as the United Nations(UNESCO) (Meek, Teichler, and Kearney 2009), the European Union (Kehm,
Huisman, and Stensaker 2009), and the World Bank. Subsequently, nationalinnovation policies have been developed that include education ofhigh-quality researchers, who can bring innovative changes to theirworkplaces across sectors (academic, nonprofit, government, or industry/business).
In addition, economic and social development of a nation is influenced not
only by the supply of highly skilled people but also by how widely academic
knowledge is disseminated (Dill and van Vught 2010). New knowledge must
be effectively disseminated and absorbed if innovations and economic
growth are to proceed from it.

In this line of thinking, the number of

researchers in countries striving for economic growth was to increase, andthe type of education they received had to be rethought.
Given the new innovation policies, education and research training had to
be organized according to a problem-solving approach, which involved
multidisciplinary teams and included participants from various sectors ofsociety. This introduced a form of knowledge production into doctoral
education that has become known as “Mode 2,” compared with thetraditional way of learning from one master scholar within one discipline,
known as“Mode 1” (Gibbons et al. 1994). Research conducted in “Mode 2”operates according to trans-disciplinary application, as well as involvementfrom multiple sectors (universities, industry, business, and governments).
Knowledge has to become more immediately socially relevant. An emphasison translational research consequently has emerged (Feldman 2008). No
longer does the research process stop at basic research findings; now
research must be translated into applications that respond to societal or295business needs.
Expectations for researchers have changed worldwide. Now new PhD
graduates are expected to possess an array of skills in addition to the ability
to conduct research. They are expected to be competent writers, speakers,
managers, and team members who can communicate research goals andresults effectively inside and outside universities. As a result, there is aneed for doctoral education programs to respond by offering workshops
and training that enable students to gain competencies beyond traditionallyacademic skills (Nerad and Evans 2014, Harman 2008, Manathunga 2009,
Nerad 2004).
3.2

The History of the Professional Development for Doctoral
Students

3.2.1

United States

Nearly two decades ago in the US, the influential National Academies’
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP 1995)
argued that PhD education should be restructured to provide students
with a greater breadth of exposure to neighboring disciplines andnon-academic career paths, and to equip doctoral students with better
communication and teamwork skills. The report concluded that PhD
education, as it existed at the time, was primarily designed to serve
research interests, and was based on the assumption that its purpose wasto replenish the ranks of academic researchers. However, COSEPUP
pointed out that at least half of PhD holders in many fields went on towork outside of academia in business, government, or nonprofit sectors.
This evidence also has been documented by the PhDs- Ten Years Later
study, a US career path study of nearly 6,000 PhD holders in the fields ofbiochemistry,computersciences,

electricalengineering,

English,mathematics, and political sciences (Nerad and Cerny 1999). Due to thehigh number of doctorate researches working outside of academia, thisstudy concluded the value in spending more time and money on careerplanning and placement activities for doctoral students (Nerad and Cerny
2000).
Interest in professional skills for PhD students continued to grow along

296

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

with concerns about the employability of doctorate holders and theirsuitability for a variety of careers. Five national initiatives in the US had
marked impact on the advancement of professional development activities
for doctoral students, with a particular focus on career preparation.
The Pew Charitable Trust sponsored a study undertaken by Golde andDore that identified a three-way mismatch between the “purpose of
doctoral education, the aspirations of the students, and the realities of theircareers within and outside of academia” (Golde and Dore 2001).
In Re-Envisioning the PhD, another Pew Foundation-funded study, leadauthor Nyquist summarized the views of a large number of stakeholders in
doctoral education (Nyquist 2002). The final report argued that doctorate
holders need a wider range of skills to function effectively, and as a result,called for a commitment to encourage informed career choices based on
exposure to a broad array of opportunities. The report also stated thatcareer exploration be included as part of the “core competencies ofsuccessful PhDs” (Nyquist 2002).
While the Carnegie Initiative of the Doctorate (2003-2006) focused on
creating “stewards of the disciplines,

its report noted that the “PhD is

the route to many destinations, and those holding doctorates follow
diverse career paths” (Walker et al. 2008: 8).
The Woodrow Wilson Foundation carried out the Responsive PhD

Initiative between 2000-2005. Among other principles stated in the final
report, the report states that doctorate education needs to become morecosmopolitan, less insular to the academy, and as a result, more attractive
to a diverse doctoral student population (Weisbuch 2005). In following
these studies, all doctoral education programs were encouraged to include
professional development activities.
Between 2002 and 2007, the Center for Innovation and Research in
Graduate Education (CIRGE) undertook two national PhD career pathstudies. Findings showed that PhD researchers have versatile career
paths that are seldom linear. Rather, there was a diverse vertical andhorizontal mobility of career paths among study participants. On average,
75% of PhD holders secured permanent employment only four years after
degree completion. In the social sciences, one quarter of all PhD recipients297

were employed outside academia. Based on these results, it can beconcluded that PhD students need more career guidance in order toconnect the knowledge and skills acquired during doctoral education to avariety of careers.
The US National Association of Graduate-Professional Students(NAGPS), founded in 1987, was not a passive by-stander in this emerging
professional development movement. NAGPS was aware that theacademic labor market at that time could not absorb the entire newgeneration of PhDs. Considering employment opportunities outside ofacademia, NAGPS was very interested that universities would offertransferable skills training during doctoral studies.
3.2.2

Australia

As mentioned earlier, in 1998 Australian universities had to provide
graduate attributes in terms of professional skills and competencies. The
University of Melbourne’s statement in response to this mandate indicates:“doctoral degrees at the University of Melbourne seek to develop
graduates who demonstrate academic leadership, increasing independence,creativity and innovation in their research, and encourage the acquisitionof a wide range of advanced and transferable skills.” Subsequently, theUniversity of Melbourne’s Graduate School developed the Advanced
Leadership & Professional Skills (ALPS) seminar series, which aim to help
graduate students develop a professional skills base that is transferable
across industry and sector. Topics covered in the ALPS seminar series
include writing for non-academic audiences and consulting (Graduate
Studies of the University of Melbourne website, n.d.).
The 2013 version of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), anational policy applicable to all Australian universities, followed suit byincluding professional skills and competencies necessary for careers
outside academia.
3.2.3

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom in 2002, recommendations for training intransferable skills were reinforced by the government in two ways

298

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

(Roberts 2002). First, expectations were established that new “thresholdstandards” should represent an essential minimum for high-quality
doctoral research degree programs (Department for Employment andLearning et al., 2003). Second, the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
Code of Practice for Research Degrees (QAA for Higher Education, 2004),
stated that transferable skills are vital to graduate students’ ability tosuccessfully transition to professional employment and assume personal,
long-term responsibility for managing their careers (Bernstein et al. 2014).
With significant UK government funding, in 2008 the UK ResearchCouncils developed a comprehensive list of the skills that PhD students
should acquire. This effort led to the development of the UK Grad program,and later to the VITAE organization, which characterizes itself as“championing the personal, professional and career development ofdoctoral researchers and research staff in higher education institutions
and research institutes.”
Institutes of higher education and research were asked to implement
opportunities for “personal development planning” that offered graduate
students and postdoctoral scholars guidance for self-reflection on bothdisciplinary and personal development (UK GRAD Programme 2005). For
instance, the Imperial College in London required three-day residential
workshops in research skills for first-year graduate students, in addition to
disciplinary training (Ritter 2008).
In all, interest in professional skills training for PhD students emerged inmany countries. This interest is rooted in the observation that PhD
holders are working outside of academia at increasing rates, as well as
national governments’ new interest in PhD-level scholars as candidates forwork in increasingly complex, knowledge-rich environments (Bernstein etal. 2014, Bartelse and Huisman 2008). In consequence, PhD students needmore than disciplinary training; they need more support than they are
currently getting in meeting the expanded list of competencies.

299

4 ． Is There Empirical Evidence for the Need of Professional
Development for Doctoral Students?
There is surprisingly little published empirical evidence on the need ofprofessional development for doctoral students. From US national career
path surveys of PhDs, we know that about half of science and engineering
PhD recipients are working outside academia (NSF Science Indicators
2012, 2014, Nerad 2009, Nerad and Cerny 1999). About one third to one
fourth of humanities and social science PhDs work in business, industry,
government or the non-profit sector. (Morrison et al. 2011, Nerad et al.
2008). This situation is not much different whether we assess PhD survey
outcome data from the US (NSF Science Indicators 2014), the UK (VITAE
2013), Australia (Western et al. 2007), or data from the OECD PhD survey(Auriol et al. 2013). Government documents and interviews with stakeholders seem to indicate that PhD recipients lack the competencies totransition successfully to professional status, particularly outside academia.
But what empirical evidence do we have from doctoral students
themselves about the need and the usefulness of this kind of training?
CIRGE conducted a national survey of PhD recipients in six social
science disciplines to investigate the need for professional development
during PhD education. Discipline areas of survey participants included
anthropology, communications, geography, history, political science, andsociology. Graduates ranged from six to ten years post-PhD completion. As
stated earlier, this analysis distinguished between “PhD-completion skills”−those acquired in the normal course of successfully completing PhD
research − and “professional skills” − career competencies beyond
traditional academic skills. The study assessed the value of both sets ofskills in the career of survey participants who had become professors andthose who had careers outside academia. The study also examined
respondents’ evaluation of support from their doctoral program andadvisor while completing their PhDs, as well as support while transitioning
from student to professional. Key findings are summarized in the graphbelow and the text that follows.

300

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?
100%

Percent Respondent

80%

Importance of Skill
60%

Quality of Training

40%

20%

0%
CriticalCriticalthinking

Thinking

Data
Dataanalysis/synthesis
Analysis/Synthesis

Write,
Write
publishResearchResearch
designGrant
Grant
writing

PublishDesignWriting

Source: M. Nerad, CIRGE, University of Washington, Social Science PhDs: 5 Years - Out Study

Figure 1

Importance of Skill at Current Job versus Quality of Training
in This Skill during PhD Studies (Social Science PhDs)

・ Data analysis and synthesis skills are the most transferable
PhD-completion skills.

They are critical in 75% of careers andare equally important in professorial careers (referred to as“faculty” in the US), as well as in business, government andnon-profit (BGN) careers, and in non-faculty academic work.
・ Among professional skills, working with diverse groups ininterdisciplinary contexts and in teams is critical in more than
33% of faculty careers and in nearly 66% of non-faculty careers.
The study found nearly everybody needs effective presentation
skills.
・ PhD students need more career guidance in terms of connecting
knowledge and skills acquired during doctoral education to avariety of careers.
The study concluded that doctoral students in the social sciences would
benefit from enhanced opportunities to develop skills in the following
areas:・ multiple data analysis and synthesis techniques,
・ giving presentations,・ working with diverse groups,

301

・ team work and collaboration,
・ working in interdisciplinary contexts, and・ managing people and budgets
The study also showed that doctoral students would also benefit from:・ learning how to recognize and articulate the transferability of
PhD-completion skills,
・ exposure to non-academic career options, and・ access to a variety of professional networks
In the study’s open-ended survey questions, participants were asked togive advice to incoming doctoral students and doctoral programs in theparticipants’ field of study. Responses to these questions show evidence ofthe need for student support and guidance in forging a viable career.
Specific examples are as follows:・ An anthropology PhD, who became a professor, advised doctoral
programs to:[B]ring in applied professionals . . . to give students a sense of thepossibilities of non-academic employment. Strengthen partnerships with community organizations in which applied professsionals work . . . create internships for graduate students andundergraduates as well (Rudd, E., Nerad, M., Emory, M., andPicciano, J., 2008: 11).
・ A geography PhD recommended PhD students to:
Find out what resources are available to you at youruniversity (in terms of professional and career development)
and make use of these resources early and often−don’t justbury yourself in your research.

These other opportunities

may lead you to your permanent career−either inside or
beyond academia” (ibid).
The following graph illustrates overall satisfaction with career
preparation by way of professional development in PhD education(comparing the field of geography to the five other social science
disciplines).

302

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?
100%
90%
80%
70%

Poor

60%

Adequate

50%
40%

Excellent

30%
20%
10%
0%

Geog

5 other fields

Academic Careers

.

Geog

5 other fields

Non-Academic Careers

Source: M. Nerad, CIRGE, University of Washington, Social Science PhDs: 5 Years - Out Study

Figure 2

Evaluation of Career Preparation by PhDs Recipients

Based on the graph above, there are only a few disciplinary variations in
the evaluation of career preparation by PhD recipients. In all, PhD
graduates were more satisfied with the support they received in meeting
program requirements than with the career preparation their program
offered.
These findings suggest that universities and PhD programs could alsoenhance students’ awareness of the transferability of skills acquired
during doctoral education.

Universities could achieve this by offering

opportunities for students to learn how to recognize and articulate thetransferability of PhD-completion skills, and providing much more in theway of career guidance, career preparation, exposure to a variety ofcareer options, and access to diverse professional networks.
Clearly, the CIRGE study makes a convincing case for the need andusefulness of professional skill development for PhD students. But, whereis the time for extending the existing doctoral education? How can one add
on to traditional doctoral education and meet the increasing pressure ofshortening the time it takes to complete a doctoral degree?

303

5．Conceptual Approaches for an Extended Doctoral Education5)
Traditional doctoral education is based on the concept of theapprenticeship model, in which a doctoral student learns from one
master̶“the supervisor” (Shulman 2004). But a closer look at current
practices in doctoral education (Nerad and Heggelund 2007) and at new
empirical research (Flores 2011, Flores and Nerad 2012) indicates that
apprenticeship, as the sole learning model, is too narrow an approach fortoday’s PhD students to acquire the competencies they need in thetwenty-first century. Therefore, a paradigm shift has occurred at a numberof doctoral programs around the world: doctoral programs are beginning tomove away from the one-to-one, top down, master-to- apprentice learning
approach, and moving toward a structured learning process that takes
place within a series of learning communities that operate at multiple levels
inside and outside the university.
I argue in this article, as I did elsewhere, that it takes a global village todevelop tomorrow’s generation of PhD students, just as a Nigirian proverb
states, “It takes a village to educate a child” (Nerad 2012). This is especiallythe case in view of the economic and societal changes in today’s labormarket for highly trained professionals. Effective preparation of the next
generation of researchers requires coordinated efforts at many levels
among universities, national and international funding agencies, andlearning communities throughout the entire scope of doctoral education. In
other words, to ensure that future researchers are trained for tomorrow’stasks, we need to combine the work of imparting traditional, professional,
and cultural competencies with the use of conceptual learning models thatencompass the entire learning context, including its various learning
communities. This is what I call the “global village” approach (Nerad 2012).
This approach spans six levels of learning communities, all operating withdifferent learning models and in different learning environments:
1. At the grassroots level, by way of the apprenticeship model,
professors pass traditional academic research skills on to PhD
candidates. This type of preparation takes place in seminars or inweekly lab meetings, and during advising hours.

304

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

2. At the departmental level−within an institute, or in a laboratorythat forms the setting for a community of practice−the professsional competencies pertaining to a discipline are taught by way ofprograms and professional development workshops as well as
through social, community-building activities. In these ways, novice
researchers have opportunities to become junior colleagues.
3. At the level of formal and informal activities, PhD students cometogether with their fellow students − their peers, or learning
partners−both to provide emotional support and to share specificcontent knowledge and advice regarding one another’s studies.
The creation of a shared workspace for doctoral students at auniversity facilitates many forms of informal learning whereby
students exchange information about resources, prepare together
for exams, and discuss the need for professional development
activities to transition from researcher to professional. This type of
peer-to-peer learning takes a horizontal rather than top-down
approach, and has its basis in reciprocity. When students areinteracting, they are like colleagues who learn from each other−amodel that Flores and Nerad (2012) conceptualize as a learning

partnership approach.
4. At the level of the central graduate school, a typical model in
American universities, PhD students learn to teach. They also
attend workshops to acquire the skills of professional researchers
outside the university, benefitting from the developmental
offerings of career centers. Graduate schools also provide training
in intercultural awareness.
5. Professional Associations, the Association of American Geographers (AAG) for example, provide career development workshops
and career fairs at their annual meetings. Between 2005 and 2009,
AAG focused on improving theoretical and practical approaches toprofessional development in the field of geography. As a result of
these efforts, AAG educational staff, along with the Association
President and a number of faculty, produced three books providing
information on transitioning from student to career professional,305

both inside and outside the university. Specifically, these books
included a resource book for graduate students who want tobecome faculty (AAG 2009), a practical guide on teaching college
geography (2012), and a book, on informing the academic
geography community about careers outside academia, Practicing

Geography: Careers for Enhancing Society and the Environment(AAG 2013).
6. At the level of the global village, doctoral students acquire
professional competencies. These global villages encompass
international

conferencesandcollaborations,

joint

degreeprograms, international internships, and other activities andarrangements that require coordinated efforts both within andbeyond the boundaries of a single academic institution and country.
As students participate in professional gatherings and interact
with researchers from different countries, they also acquire
cultural competencies.
Examples of the “global village” approach in action can be found in the US,
Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, and the European Union (through its
Madame Curie program for Initial Training Networks). In these countries,
governments have sponsored multi-year grants requiring innovative,
interdisciplinary, theme-oriented doctoral education that purposefully
structures the learning process within a multitude of learning communities
applying a variety of learning approaches. In the US, these initiatives areadministered through National Research Training (NRT), formerly the
Integrated Graduate Education Research Training, and are funded by the
National Science Foundation or by equivalent programs of the National
Institutes of Health. In Germany, initiatives known as Graduiertenkollegs
are funded by the German Research Council. Since 2005, there has also been
special emphasis on and funding support from the German Excellence
Initiative for umbrella graduate schools that offer professional development
programs. In Australia, where these govern- mental initiatives are called
Collaborative Research Centers (Nerad 2010, Harman 2008, Manathunga
and Pitt 2009l, Kehm 2008), funded programs are required to provide
opportunities for doctoral students to network with professionals in their306

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

field of study, who work outside academia; and to ensure that PhD
candidates acquire necessary professional skills.

6．Locus and Models of Offering Professional Development for
Doctoral Students
6.1

Locus: A Central Unit: A Central Campus Graduate Division

Many universities in the US, Australia, and Europe now offer professsional development workshops (professional competencies) through theircenter of teaching and learning. More often now, these workshops arecoordinated by campus-wide graduate schools.
US-based graduate schools are ideal places to implement professional
development activities due to characteristics that are unique to thiscountry. Specifically, two key functions of US-based graduate schools are:・ to assure the quality of master’s and doctoral education across theentire university, and・ to provide support services for graduate programs and graduate
students.
A campus-wide graduate school, which is both an educational andadministrative unit, provides professional skills training that allow
doctoral students to be successful in a variety of employment settings.
This training is implemented by initiating and coordinating offerings
among graduate student service units, such as a career center and ateaching and learning center.
6.2

Existing Models of Professional Development for Doctoral Students

Feetham examined a number of existing programs and activities that
American graduate schools offer as part of professional developmenttraining (Feetham, n.d.). Of these programs and activities, Feetham
identified six program models:・ those that employ a developmental framework,・ those that employ a competency-based framework,・ those that include practical experience,・ those that focus on interdisciplinary training,307

・ those that maintain a data-driven focus, and・ those that depend on off-campus partnerships.
The examples that follow provide a picture of the kind of programs andactivities that are offered by a significant number of American graduate
schools.
Examples of professional development programs that employ adevelopmental framework exist at the Graduate Schools at the Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln and Michigan State University. The graduate-levelprofessional development program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
is structured around the three stages of doctoral student development:“Moving In, Moving Through, and Moving On.” The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln offers activities that support students at each stage;
each activity focuses on the acquisition of a particular competency, which
is deemed necessary for success in graduate school and beyond. At
Michigan State University, the graduate-level professional development
program is arranged into web resources, workshops, and a teachingcertification program. Each aspect of this professional development
program corresponds to a particular phase that students complete in theirdoctoral education (Feetham, n.d.).
Examples of professional development programs that focus on
acquisition of competencies exist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
and the University of Melbourne. In this example, “competencies” refer toseven skill areas: self-awareness and support, communication skills, careeradvancement, research expertise, teaching expertise, engagement, andleadership. Each of these competencies is clearly defined in order to guidestudents’ understanding of the concept and how it might be acquired.
Administrators of these professional development programs have built
networks

withacademic

departments

thataddress

professional

development issues. In these ways, graduate programs at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Melbourne accomplish their goals
by leveraging campus support through collaborations, particularly at thecollege/department level and several other resources. Duplication efforts
are avoided, but experiences that supplement disciplinary-specific training
activities are offered as complementary and supplementary. As mentioned

308

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

earlier, the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Melbourne
makes the development of professional competencies a key component in
its offerings. An extensive selection of seminars, short courses, and shortworkshops address students’ needs and concerns during all phases ofgraduate school − from beginning coursework to preparation for aprofessional life inside or outside the academy.
An example of a professional development program that emphasizes
practical experience exists at the University of Colorado. Here, theGraduate School introduces graduate students to careers in academic
librarianship by illustrating the benefits of combining a master’s degree or
doctorate with a master’s degree in library science (Feetham, n.d.: 26).
Graduate students are mentored for 150 contact hours with a faculty
member from the University’s libraries. In this way, students can learn
about a career as a library faculty member through direct experience in auniversity library setting. At the University of Texas, the Professional
Development and Community Engagement Program (PDCE), locatedwithin the Office of Graduate Studies, offers students the opportunity toreceive academic credit for different types of internship programs in thecommunity surrounding the university. The PDCE also provides hands-on
experience and capacity building in a variety of areas, from writing andcommunication to community engagement projects (Feetham, n.d.).
Other American graduate schools focus their professional development
activities on interdisciplinary activities. One such example is the
University of Washington’s Institute on the Public Humanities for Doctoral
Students, supported by The Graduate School and the (Simpson) Center for
the Humanities.

The professional development program here invites

interested doctoral students from all disciplines to collaborate with
community partners in a trans-disciplinary way. Each year for one week,eighteen fellows and two mentor fellows (returning fellows who havehelped to plan and assist with the institute), explore how diverse forms ofcultural work can generate communities of learning and inquiry acrossuniversity-community divides. Program participants read, visit sites, invite
guest speakers, and engage in collaborative projects with the AsianHistory Museum or the Public Library, to name a few community partners

309

(Feetham, n.d.).
Many other graduate school’s professional development programs aredata driven. These schools collect data both as a base for planning, and asa means of evaluation for further improvement. Specifically, universities
administer surveys or host focus groups to collect data on students’ needs
and interests. Post-event surveys help track usefulness of program
activities as well as participants’ demographics. This data helps programadministrators tailor activities to the needs of the current student
population.

The University of California Berkeley and the University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill are two universities whose graduate schools
use the data-driven model. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, program administrators learned from collected data that doctoral
students prefer stand-alone workshops rather entire seminars or fixed
series of workshops.
A number of universities located in state capitals or in Washington D.C.
take advantage of their unique geographic location as part of theoff-campus partnership model. For example, Howard University, located in
Washington D. C., employs the off-campus partnership model in its
professional development program. This university invites speakers fromhigher education coordination boards, and professionals from the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National
Graduate or Postdoctoral Association to speak to their graduate student
population.
By assessing the six models of professional development programs that
Feetham identifies, we find that these programs use many different
approaches and activities beyond traditional research training. Frequently,
campus-wide training programs such as Centers for Teaching and
Learning, manage these programs. More recently, many graduate schools
provide opportunities and funding to travel to national international
conferences and collaborative meetings between universities. They bringinternational graduate students together with domestic graduate students
from various fields. In short, they initiate and support a variety of local,
national, and international learning communities. Despite differences
between universities, American professional development programs have310

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

a common goal. Specifically, these programs aim to provide skill-building
tools and information for doctoral students to succeed as professionals inwhatever sector they choose for their post-degree career, both within andoutside of academia.

7．Conclusion
This article revealed the existing awareness for professional development through an analysis of definitions and history of its emergence. In
many countries, today, universities (program administrators and professors), funding agencies, and students themselves understand the need toacquire more than traditional research skills in order to succeed post-PhD.
Universities currently employ a variety of professional development
activities that aim to help students achieve this goal.
However, in spite of this heightened awareness, tensions exist thatchallenge a smooth introduction of additional sets of competencies into
doctoral education. Professors and dissertation advisors worry that theirdoctoral students will spend less time conducting research. Additionally,
state and national governments provide universities with increasingly
limited financial resources. Funders and university administrators are
responding by increasing university efficiency. For students, thisefficiency translates to fixed time-to-degree periods, either three or five
year periods to achieve a doctoral degree (The discrepancy of years isbased on determination whether the doctoral degree includes time spentearning the preceding master’s degree).
As a result, professional development training may be viewed withskepticism. However, using the “global village approach” discussed in thisarticle will not extend the time-to-degree period of three to five years.

Infact, a CIRGE study on the importance of time to-doctoral degree for thesocial science discipline found that doctoral students who had timemanagement training and who were encouraged by their advisers to
pursue professional skill training had shorter time-to-degree compared to
PhD students without such training (Morrison, R., Rudd E., and Nerad, M.
2008).

311

Universities also face other challenges in implementing professional
development programs. First, a common set of definitions for professional
development is necessary across universities, countries, and government
agencies. Second, it is important to develop effective means of assessment
for professional development. For instance, mastery of each identifiedcompetency must be established−including at which educational level andwhich proficiency level students are expected to achieve a given
competency (Bernstein et al. 2014).
Today, it is understood in many parts of the world that PhD preparationworldwide must include more that the traditional academic, disciplinary,
analytical, and technical knowledge and skills. Transferable skills andtranslational competencies are also an essential element of PhD education.
They provide the foundation for leadership necessary in the global
knowledge economy.
Notes1) In the following list, the terms “competencies” and “skills” are usedinterchangeably to keep consistent with the reviewed literature.
2) I want to thank Ziyan Bai who contributed to the literature review section.
3) This article also uses the term “doctoral advisor” to refer to the main
professor who works with a doctoral student. In European countries and inAustralia and New Zealand, this person is known as a “supervisor.” If
references are made “doctoral advisor” or “supervisor” in respect toAustralia and Europe, these terms are interchangeable.
4) The following section has been adopted from an earlier article in

Perspectives in Education (Nerad 2011).
5) The following section is based on the article in Alternation (Nerad 2012).

References
Association of American Geographers (AAG), 2009, Solem, M., K. Foote, and J.
Monk, eds., Aspiring Academics: A Resource Book for Graduate Students and
Early Career Faculty, Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Association of American Geographers (AAG), 2009, Solem, M. and K. Foote,
Teaching College Geography: A Practical Guide for Graduate Students and312

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

Early Career Faculty, Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Association of American Geographers (AAG), 2013, Solem, M., Foote, K., andMonk, J., eds., Practicing Geography: Careers for Enhancing Society and theEnvironment, Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Association of American Geographers (AAG), 2013, Enhancing Department andGraduate Education in Geography.
(http://www.aag.org/edge)
Aanerud, R., Homer L, Rudd, E., Morrison, E, Nerad, M., and Cerny, J., 2007,
Widening the Lens on Gender and Tenure: Looking beyond the Academic
Labor Market. NWSA Journal, 19: 3.
ACDDOGS, 2012, Outcomes from a Workshop to Explore Approaches to Quality

Doctoral Research Training in Our Region, 15-6, Canberra: AustralianGovernment.
Auriol L., M. Misu, and R. A. Freeman, 2013, “Careers of Doctorate Holders:
Analysis of Labour Market and Mobility Indicators,” OECD Science,

Technology and Industry Working Papers 2013/04, OECD Publishing.
Australian Qualifications Framwork Council, 2013, Australian Qualifications
Framework, Adelaide: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Barnacle, R., and Dall’Alba, G., 2011, Research Degrees as Professional
Education?, Studies in Higher Education, 36(4): 459-70.
Bartelse, J., and Huisman, J., 2008, Nerad, M. and Heggelund, M., eds., Toward a

Global PhD? Forces & Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide, 101-16,
Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.
Bernstein, B., B. Evans, J. Fyffe, N. Halai, F. Hall, H. S. Jensen, H. March, and S.
Ortega, 2014, “The Continuing Evolution of the Research Doctorate”,
Chapter 1, Nerad, M. and Evans B., eds., 2014, Globalization and Its Impacts on

the Quality of PhD Education Worldwide, Forces and Forms of Doctoral
Education Worldwide, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Blumenfield, T. and Nerad, M., 2012, International Assessment: Developing a
Research Agenda for (Post)graduate Education and Collaboration, Austral-

ian Universities Review, 54(1): 72-83.
Boud, D., and Lee, A., eds, 2009, Changing Practices of Doctoral Education,
London: Routledge.
Carter S. and Laurs D., eds., 2014, Developing Generic Support for Doctoral
Students: Practice and Pedagogy, London: Routledge.
Chambaz, J., 2008, Reforming Doctoral Education in Europe: A Response to

Global Challenges, Paper Presented at the European University Association
Council for Doctoral Education Launch, June 1-3, in Lausanne, Switzerland.

313

(www.cirge.washington.edu)(www.cirge.washington.edu)
COSEPUP, 1995, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers,
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record̲id=4935&page=2 , August 12,2008)
Department of Education, Science and Training, 2003, Backing Australia’s
Ability: The Australian Government’s Innovation Report 2003-2004,
Commonwealth of Australia.
(http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/reports/03̲04/innov03̲04.rtf)
DIISRTE, 2011, Defining Quality for Research Training in Australia: National

consultations.
(http://www.hestandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/DefiningQualityforResea
rchTraininginAustralia̲0.pdf, November 20, 2014)
DIISRTE, 2012, Selected Higher Education Statistics 2012 Staff Highest

Qualification, Australian Government Department of Education.
(http://docs.education.gov.au/node/33887, November 20, 2014)
Dill, D. and F. van Vught, eds., 2010, National Innovation and the Academic
Research Enterprise: Public Policy in Global Perspective, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Enders, J., 2004, Research Training and Careers in Transition: A European
Perspective on the Many Faces of the Ph.D., Studies in Continuing Education,
26: 419-29.
European Science Foundation (ESF), 2012, Developing Research Careers in andbeyond Europe: Enabling, Observing, Guiding and Going Global, A report by
the ESF Member Organization Forum European Alliance on Research Career
Development (EARCD), Strasburg: Strasbourg: an NSF publication.
European University Association, 2005, Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society: Report on the EUA Doctoral Programmes Project
2004-2005, 32.
(http://www.eua.be/eua/sp/en/upload/Doctoral̲Programmes̲Project̲Repo
rt.1129278878120.pdf)
Feetham, E., n.d., Professional Development Programs for Graduate Students:
Best Practices, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Washington Graduate
School, Seattle, Washington.
Feldman, A., 2008, Does Academic Culture Support Translational Research?,
CTS: Clinical and Translational Sciences 1 (2): 87-8.
(http://ccts.uth.tmc.edu/what-is-translational-research)314

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

Flores, E., 2011, Becoming a Researcher: A Qualitative Study of theApprenticeship Model in Doctoral Education, Unpublished dissertation,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Flores, E. and Nerad M., 2012, Peers in Doctoral Education: Unrecognized
Learning Partners, New Directions for Higher Education, 157(Spring 201):
73-83.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, and M. Trow, 1994, The New

Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., and Whitehouse, H., 2004, The Generic Skills
Debate in Research Higher Degrees, Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 23: 375-88.
Golde, C. M and Dore, T. M., 2001, At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences ofToday’s Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education, Survey Initiatedby the Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts.
(http://www.phd-survey.org/report%20final.pdf, April 4, 2012)
Harman, K., 2008, Challenging Traditional Research Training Culture: Industry
Oriented Doctoral Programs in Australian Cooperative Research Centres,
Välimaa, J. and O-H Ylijoki, eds., Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education,
Springer Books.
(http://www.springer. com/social+sciences/book/978-1-4020-6603-0)
Kehm, B. Huisman, J., and Stensaker, B., eds., 2009, The European Higher
Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target, Rotterdam, Taipei: Sense
Publishers.
LERU, 2014, Advice Paper, Bogle, D., Good Practice Elements in Doctoral
Training.
(http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/advice-papers/)
Manathunga, C., R. Pitt, et al., 2009, Research Students’ Graduate Attribute
Development: Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Graduate Perceptions andEmployment Outcomes, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,34(1): 12.
Manathunga, C. and Wissler, R., 2003, Generic Skill Development for Research
Higher Degree Students: An Australian example, International Journal of

Instructional Media, 30(3): 233-46.
Meek, V. L., U. Teichler, and M-L. Keraney, 2009, Higher Education, Researchand Innovation: Changing Dynamics, Report on UNESCO Forum on Higher
Education, Research and Knowledge 2001-2009, Kassel, Germany: International Center for Higher Education and Research.

315

Morrison, R., Rudd E., and Nerad, M., 2011, Early Career of Recent U. S. Social
Science PhDs, Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher

Education in the Social Science, 4(2): 6-29.
Nerad, M. and Cerny, J., 1999, Postdoctoral Patterns, Career Advancement, andProblems, in American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science,
285: 1533-5.
Nerad, M. and J. Cerny., 2000, Improving Doctoral Education, CGS Communicator, XXXIII(2): 6, Council of Graduate Schools, Washington. D.C.
Nerad, M., 2004, The PhD in the US: Criticisms, Facts and Remedies, Higher

Education Policy, 17(2): 183-99.
Nerad, M., Aanerud, R., and Cerny, J., 2004, So You Want to Be a Professor!
Lessons from the PhDs: Ten Years Later Study, D. Wulff and A. Austin, eds.,

Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future
Faculty, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nerad, M. and Heggelund, M., eds., 2008, Toward A Global PhD? Forces andForms in Doctoral Education Worldwide, Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Nerad, M., 2009, Confronting Common Assumptions: Designing Future-oriented
Doctoral Education, R. Ehrenberg and Ch. Kuh., eds., Doctoral Education andthe Faculty of the Future, 80-9, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Nerad, M., 2010, Globalization and the Internationalization of Graduate
Education: A Macro and Micro View, Canadian Journal of Higher Education,40(1): 1-12.
Nerad, M., 2012, Conceptual Approaches to Doctoral Education: A Communityof Practice, Alternation, 19(2): 57-72.
Nerad, M. and Evans, B., eds., 2014, Globalization and Its Impacts on the Qualityof PhD Education Worldwide, Forces and Forms of Doctoral Education
Worldwide, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
National Sience Foundation (NSF), 2012, Science Indicators 2012 and 2014,
Washington, D. C.: NSF Publication.
Nyquist, J., 2002, The PhD: A Tapestry of Change for the 21st Century, Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34(6):12-20.
OECD, 2014, The PhD Bubble.,Paris Tech Review.
(http://www.paristechreview.com/2014/01/29/phd-training-outstrips-demand/)Peseta, T. and Brew, A., 2009, Supervision Development and Recognition in a
Reflexive Space, D. Boud, A. Lee, D. Boud, and A. Lee, eds., Changing
Practices in Doctoral Education, 126-39, Oxford: Routledge.

316

Professional Development for Doctoral Students: What is it? Why Now? Who does it?

Picciano, J., Rudd, E., Emory, M., and Nerad, M., 2008, On Doctoral Education:
Does Time-to Degree Matter? Findings from Social Science PhDs: Five+
Years Out, CIRGE Spotlight #3, CIRGE: Seattle, WA.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2004, Code of Practice for the
Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education, Sec. 1,
Postgraduate Research Programmes, Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education.
(http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/p
ostgrad2004.pdf, April 4, 2012)
Ritter, M., 2008, PhD Education in the UK: Building Transferable Skills,
Presentation for the 2008 CGS/NSF Workshop: A Fresh Look at PhD
Education, National Science Foundation, Stafford I Board Room 1235,
Arlington, VA.
(http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/CGSNSF2008̲Ritter.pdf)
Roberts, G., 2002, Set for Success: The Supply of People with Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills, Report Submitted to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, London: HM Treasury.
Rudd, E. and Nerad, M., 2014, Career Preparation in PhD Programs: Results of a
National Survey of Early Career Geographers, GeoJournal, August 17, 2014,
Springer.
Rudd, E., Nerad, M., Emory, M., and Picciano, J., 2008, Professional Development

for PhD Student: Do They Really Need It?, Findings from Social Science
PhDs: Five+ Years Out, CIRGE Spotlight #2, CIRGE: Seattle, WA.
Shulman, L. S., 2005, Signature Pedagogies in the Professions, Daedalus, 134(3):52-9.
Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G., 2004, Academic Capitalism and the New Economy:

Markets, States and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Schlemper, B., J. Adams, and M. Solem, eds., 2013, The Professional Geographer,

Geographers in Business, Government and Non Profit Organizations: Skills,
Challenges, and Professional Identities, London: Routledge.
Solem, M., Cheung, I., and Schlemper, B., 2008, Skills in Professional Geography:
An Assessment of Workforce Needs and Expectations, The Professional

Geographer, 60(3): 1-18.
Talentalign, 2012, Skills and Competencies.
(http://www.talentalign.com/skills-vs-competencies-whats-the-difference/, November 22, 2014)317

Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, Higher Education in
Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, Washington, DC: Task Force on
Higher Education and Society, World Bank.

UK GRAD Programme, 2005, Autumn Update on Emerging Practice on the
Use of Personal Development Planning (PDP) for Postgraduate
Researchers (PGRs).
Vitae, 2008.
(https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/rdf-related/researcher-deve
lopment-statement-rds-vitae.pdf)
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., and Hutchings, P., 2008,

The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the
Twenty-first Century, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ward, M. H., 2013, Living in Liminal Space: The PhD as Accidental Pedagogy,
Sydney: Unpublished Thesis.
Weisbuch, R., 2005, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, The

Responsive PhD: Innovations in U.S. Doctoral Education, Princeton, NJ:
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
Western, M., Kubler, M., Western, J., Clague, D., Boreham, P., Laffan, W., andLawson, A., 2007, “PhD Graduates 5 to 7 Years Out: Employment Outcomes,
Job Attributes and the Quality of Research Training,” Brisbane, Australia:
The University of Queensland Social Research Center.

318

博士課程の学生のための能力開発

ネラッド・マレーシ*＜要旨＞

博士課程教育で育成されるべき能力は多様化してきている。かつて
は学術研究能力を育てていれば十分であった。しかし、現在、博士号取得者が研究職以外のキャリアを歩む可能性を視野に入れ、ワークシ
ョップや研修などの能力開発をとおして汎用的能力を育成することも期待されている。本稿の目的は、博士課程の学生に対する能力開発の現状と課題を明らかにすることである。現状と課題を明らかにする
うえで、まず、米国、豪州、欧州における博士課程の学生のための能力開発の定義と動向を整理した。次に、データをもとに、博士課程の学生に対する能力開発の必要性を示した。そして、汎用的能力の育成を組み込んだ博士課程教育の概念的モデルを提示した。
博士課程の学生に対して能力開発を行うことで、研究時間の減少を招き、博士号取得までの時間が長期化するという批判がある。しかし、本稿で提示したグローバル・ビレッジ・アプローチを活用することで、博士号取得までの時間を延長することなく、学生の汎用的能力を育成することができる。

ワシントン大学・大学院教育革新研究センター長
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員准教授

319