Deconstructing the skills training debate in doctoral education

Abstract

The pressure being placed on universities to deliver skills training for the workplace has generated considerable debate. This paper deconstructs the broader employability discourse in which the debate is embedded in order to draw out its formative implications for skills training during candidature. The paper argues against erection of a deficiency model in the context of skills training of higher degree research (HDR) students, and that the employability discourse is essentially reductive. It obscures whole areas of HDR knowledge production, thus skewing skills training towards the perceived needs of science students; the significant contribution made by research education developers to skills training of HDR students; and employer responsibility for workplace skills training. Notions of skills transferability, best practice and embedding are all shown to be problematic in that they lack discriminative power. Finally, the paper demonstrates that HDR students do value skills training at the institutional level despite prevailing uncertainty.

Keywords:

• Doctoral education
• Employment
• Knowledge‐based economy
• Skills training

Notes

1. This two‐day colloquium entitled ‘Research by Degrees: A Colloquium on Research Education Development Programs for Higher Degree Students’ was an initiative of Flinders University, hosted by the Graduate School at Melbourne University from 8–9 July 2005. It was the first time those involved in organizing and/or delivering RED programs had come together at a national level to discuss issues of interest and concern to them. One important outcome of the meeting was the formation of a new national organization REDNet. Information is available at URL: ⟨https://listserver.flinders.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rednet⟩.

2. This discussion of the GILP draws on the 2004 Report of the Program, which can be accessed at URL: ⟨http://ilp.anu.edu.au/grad/2004Report.pdf⟩.