A future in the knowledge economy? Analysing the career strategies of doctoral scientists through the principles of game theory

Abstract

In recent decades, increasing participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has emerged as a globally shared policy objective in higher education. This policy objective is underpinned by a commitment to the economic framework of the knowledge economy and the belief that STEM education, knowledge and innovation are prerequisites for economic growth. This paper is concerned with doctoral scientists, who occupy a position of considerable privilege according to knowledge economy discourse: expertly knowledgeable, highly skilled and sought by elite employers. This paper assesses these policy claims against the experiences of recent doctoral scientists studying in the UK. Data from a 3-year mixedmethod study are subjected to a novel, game theory informed analysis of students' values, decision-making behaviour and career ambitions. While all doctoral scientists engage in career-oriented strategizing, the game strategies employed by students are diverse and reveal conflicted understandings of knowledge economy policy. Implications of these findings and the analytical merits of game theory are discussed.

Reconceptualising organisational collaborations in social science doctoral education

“…Lam (2010) shows how researchers develop tactically hybrid identities, skilfully exploiting the professional ambiguities and possibilities generated at the academic-industry interface. Aware of their breadth of expertise, the doctoral scientists interviewed by Hancock (2019) rejected the academic 'game' in favour of a career in industry. Hancock uses the principles of game theory to analyse what he suggests are the different 'ideal-type' strategies adopted by doctoral scientists in relation to the knowledge economy, from 'scientific purists' and 'social idealists' through to 'pragmatists' and 'third-order' capitalists.…”

“…Unlike academic surveys and studies of scientific career strategies (Lam 2010, Etmanski 2019, Hancock 2019, policy evaluations tend not to ask the more fundamental questions about epistemology, criticality and independence generated by organisational collaborations. Calhoun and Rhoten (2010) highlight the role of interdisciplinarity in generating disciplinary insight, whilst Brodin (2016) underscores the value of cultivating 'critical creativity' within doctoral supervision in ways that foster independence but avoid disciplinary defensiveness.…”

“…Within the field of Higher Education, there is a growing evidence-base on industry-doctoral collaborations (e.g. Enders and de Weerdt 2004, Borrell-Damian and European University Association 2009, Thune 2009, Hancock 2019) but this work tends not to foreground individual student experiences, the pedagogy of partnerships, or the role of collaborations in generating critical reflection and new knowledge.…”

Doctoral employability: A systematic literature review and research agenda

“…In modern times, this is no longer the case . The current employment prospects are different when compared to that experienced in previous generations, and this shift has left doctoral candidates uncertain as to how to prepare for their futures (Hancock, 2019). A recent report states that 57 percent of doctoral graduates are employed in non-academic roles (McGagh et al, 2016).…”

Theoretical, practical and hybrid ex-academics: Career transfer stories

“…Among academics who have exited academia (henceforth, ex-academics ) to build careers in other sectors, some have subsequently returned to academic positions (see e.g. Aarrevaara and Pekkola, 2010; Barcan, 2018; Hancock, 2018; Kehm and Teichler, 2013; Locke and Bennion, 2010; Teichler and Höhle, 2013). However, thus far, there is little understanding of ex-academics’ experiences and career trajectories or of how doctoral degrees and university work experience (Aarnikouvu et al, 2019; Helin et al, 2019; Pekkola, 2014) might affect career prospects beyond academia.…”