https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-3811
ABSTRACT
PhD researchers are increasingly working in non-academic sectors, garnering interest in the extent to which doctoral education is relevant for careers beyond academia. Writing, arguably the most important and challenging activity PhDs must master, is a skill also coveted in the knowledge economy, required of employees across labour sectors. Using the concept of genre knowledge to frame how genres are performed in various situations, this exploratory qualitative study examines the perceptions of UK PhD holders in non-academic posts regarding the similarities and differences between academic and non-academic genres and the relevance of their PhD writing skills to their workplace writing. Findings suggest that PhD researchers’ time and investment in academic writing during the degree leads to an understanding of how genres work – knowledge that allows PhDs to adjust to writing in new situations.
Context
Writing is a dominant mode of knowledge production and communication, required of knowledge workers across sectors. PhD researchers must master a variety of academic genres during doctoral study, including the thesis, ethics forms, and often, journal articles, conference proposals, and presentations. These genres require extensive analytical, research, and communication skills, and multiple studies have reported on the challenges of learning academic writing (e.g. Castello et al., Citation2013; Kamler & Thomson, Citation2004). The thesis, the major project, is a work of several years under the supervision of a more senior academic. Supervisors vary in their approaches to writing support (Cayley, Citation2020), so students often learn through the practice of writing and the different forms of feedback they receive (Inouye, Citation2020). Writing is, in fact, one of the principal tasks of the PhD.
Increasing numbers of PhD graduates are working in sectors beyond the academy (Etmanski, Citation2019; Vitae, Citation2016). As a result, researchers and policymakers have become interested in the career trajectories of non-academic PhD holders (Guerin, Citation2020). A small but growing literature has begun to explore how graduates in non-academic posts view their PhDs in broad terms such as the relevance of their PhDs to their work (e.g. Thune et al., Citation2012), suggesting that research skills, problem solving and analysis, and effective communication are key outcomes of doctoral training (Bryan & Guccione, Citation2018; Diamond et al., Citation2014). Communicating with audiences who may or may not have specialised backgrounds is particularly important for those working outside the academy (Mitic & Okahana, Citation2021), and is recognised by employers as a strength of PhD holders (Diamond et al., Citation2014). However, the quality of writing support during the PhD is questionable (Rudd & Nerad, Citation2015), though arts and humanities graduates are more likely to feel well-prepared in their writing and communication abilities (Diamond et al., Citation2014).
Despite the wealth of writing experience acquired during the doctorate, the importance of communication skills, and the number of PhDs working outside academia, little research focuses specifically on how PhD holders draw on academic writing skills in the non-academic workplace. Research on how undergraduates transition from academic to workplace writing suggests the ability to apply learned writing skills and knowledge in different contexts presents a challenge for many (e.g. Ansong & Forsberg, Citation1990; Freedman & Adam, Citation1996). Individuals who found university writing helpful came from disciplines with clear links between theory and practice, and made connections between analytical thinking and writing activities through opportunities to perform a variety of genres within their disciplinary contexts (Schneider & Andre, Citation2005).
Examining writing in the context of non-academic work provides insight into both the types of writing PhD holders encounter in the workplace and what writing skills and knowledge acquired during the doctorate are perceived as useful in non-academic careers. As doctoral researchers are generally trained to perform academic genres, this paper is interested in how PhDs transition from academic writing to the writing activities required in other sectors. The research question guiding this study is: To what extent are the writing skills and knowledge developed in PhD programmes relevant and applicable to workplace writing beyond academia?
Writing across contexts: Recontextualising genre knowledge
We draw on the concept of genre knowledge to discuss how PhD holders utilise their PhD writing experiences in producing the various written genres required in non-academic workplaces. Following the North American tradition of rhetorical genre theory, we define genre as typified action that performs a particular purpose in particular similar situations (Miller, Citation1984). In turn, each genre has its own set of rhetorical features and expectations. In the PhD context, for instance, the thesis demonstrates the doctoral candidate’s disciplinary knowledge, research ability, writing skills, and critical thinking towards achieving the PhD degree. The thesis should be submitted with the appropriate documentation to the appropriate people, who have certain expectations regarding structure and rhetorical features (Parry, Citation1998; Swales, Citation2004).
Building upon a body of work exploring how genres are learned and adapted (e.g. Freadman, Citation1987; Negretti & McGrath, Citation2018; Tardy et al. Citation2020) proposed a framework for use in research and in teaching. Here, the concepts of particular importance are genre awareness and genre-specific knowledge, as these underpin individuals’ ability to recontextualise, or adapt and utilise, their existing knowledge when performing new genres. Genre-specific knowledge refers to ‘the knowledge users hold of a particular genre or group of genres’, (p. 294), while genre awareness refers to a broader ‘understanding of how genres work’, (p. 296) speaking to one’s knowledge of what genres are appropriate for different contexts and how to draw upon genre-specific knowledge to adapt to a new situation, thus constituting a type of meta-awareness or metacognition.
‘Recontextualisation’ describes a process in which individuals draw on genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness to characterise the situation and identify the appropriate genre. For situations requiring familiar genres, genre-specific knowledge is more heavily relied-upon, whereas unfamiliar situations and genres may require more reliance upon genre awareness. Using this framework, this study examines how PhDs may recontextualise the genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness acquired during their doctorates to produce the various written genres required in the workplace.
Method
Following ethical approval from the University of Oxford, we contacted participants who took part in our previous studies on UK PhD holders in non-academic careers (e.g. McAlpine et al., Citation2021), to see whether they would be interested in a follow-up interview focused on workplace writing. We also engaged in snowball sampling and posted a recruitment ad to Twitter, resulting in a final sample of 11 participants. All participants were assigned pseudonyms. Please see, for participant information.
Table 1. Participants.
This exploratory study involved semi-structured interviews of between 40 and 60 minutes via either Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Interviews focused on the types of writing produced at work, learning to produce different genres, and the usefulness of PhD training for current writing activities. Prior to each interview, participants submitted one to two samples of workplace writing to guide portions of the interview. For instance, questions such as, ‘what is the purpose of this document?’ and ‘what resources did you draw upon to produce this document?’ were asked to shed light on the writing process and the specific contexts in which the document (and similar documents) were produced. Although doctoral (thesis) writing is just one type of academic genre, for the purpose of this study we used the general term ‘academic writing’ when asking participants to compare the PhD with their non-academic workplace writing experiences. Finally, participants who were ‘new’, meaning they had not taken part in our previous study, were asked to complete an online questionnaire, which collected information about the participants and their organisations of employment. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Interview data were analysed via qualitative inductive coding, conducted via MAXQDA 2020. The first author began by generating brief descriptions/summaries of each participant’s experience, and developed an initial set of codes after reading through all interviews and summaries. She then coded two interviews as samples and sent her MAX file to the second author, who coded the same two interviews using the initial codes. Both authors then discussed and compared coding to refine the definitions. Each code segment was at least one sentence long. This process was repeated several times to achieve consistency and clarity.
Limitations
Because this was an exploratory study of participants’ day-to-day writing tasks, interview questions were relatively open-ended. We did, however, ask about similarities and differences in relation to PhD writing, and the ways in which participants characterised this relationship led us to frame the study via genre knowledge. We therefore imagine other aspects of genre knowledge would emerge in a more focused study. Further, we did not address the experiences of those using English-as-another-language.
Results
The participants held a variety of positions across the public, private, non-profit, and higher education sectors, and produced a range of written documents, from academic journal articles to public-relations thought pieces and meeting notes. When prompted, many participants (n = 8) also discussed emails as accounting for a substantial portion of their writing activities. Some genres, like journal articles and research reports, had clear links to academic research, and though several participants managed to find jobs which drew on their PhD subject knowledge (Simon, Rachel, Jenny), only Simon commented upon the relevance of subject knowledge in relation to workplace writing.
All participants described learning how to write different workplace genres on the job, ‘learning as you go’ (Rachel), or ‘by modelling what other people are doing’ (Jenny), but did not discuss their PhD writing experiences as relevant to learning workplace genres, despite the similarities identified between the types of writing. Only one participant (Rachel) engaged in formal training – a business writing course, which she enrolled in with encouragement from her line manager.
Similarities: Research-related genres and argumentation
Participants used their genre-specific knowledge of academic and non-academic genres to identify parallels between doctoral and workplace writing. Looking across the range of workplace genres, some, like journal articles, fit squarely within the academic writing context. Others, like research reports, were related to academic genres. For instance, participants who produced research reports (n = 6) described the value of research experience, referring specifically to the ability to conduct a literature review and synthesise large amounts of information: ‘[When] you put together a literature review [you] summarise … lengthy academic work that other people have done, in a shorter document, and I think we do an awful lot of that’ (Adrian).
Others discussed similarities between research reports and academic journal articles in terms of structure. Rachel, who wrote reports for her role as Impact Coordinator, explained, ‘This [report] was written … not quite [in] an academic report style, but it’s … directed towards that way of writing. So you’ve got the introduction, where it sets the background … the method of [how] the data was collected, and … the results’. However, as Benjamin pointed out, unlike an academic paper, a report might place less emphasis on methodology and more emphasis on results and implications: ‘[T]he client isn’t really interested in the preamble. They want the results’.
On a broader level, three participants pointed out that what was similar about their writing during the PhD and at work was attention to purpose and argument: ‘the core principles are fundamentally the same, right? You are trying to construct an argument and present a case in as compelling a way as possible’ (Elise). Therefore, while there were clear similarities between written academic genres and one type of workplace writing – the research report – these three individuals suggested that a larger underlying connection between writing in academic and non-academic contexts involves thinking about the argument to achieve the purpose of the document. This idea is returned to in a later section on PhD value.
Differences: Language, audience (and purpose)
The participants provided concrete examples of genre awareness – that is, a meta-knowledge of how genres ‘work’. In discussing the differences between workplace and academic writing, several related themes surfaced: language, audience, and purpose. The need for clarity and conciseness were emphasised, and spoke to the difference in genre purposes: academic genres are intended to share new knowledge and convey how that knowledge is contextualised and generated, while workplace genres need to provide information.
Seven participants specifically referred to language when asked to articulate how their workplace writing differs from academic writing. To the participants, academic writing was associated with jargon and complex sentences, while non-academic writing required simpler language and shorter sentences. For instance: ‘It is partly I think to do with … the language’ (Rachel); ‘one of the main differences is the style of language … [it’s] a lot more informal’ (Erica); and ‘all this language [in work documents] kind of sounds the same. It’s that development-speak’ (Jenny). Rachel and Jenny noted that in the past, they were told they were ‘writing like an academic’ (Jenny). Rachel reflected, ‘I’ve definitely been … told, “You need [to] simplify the language there a bit. You’re writing in … academic language”’ (Rachel). Adrian and Harriet also made clear that they disliked ‘jargon and long words’ (Harriet) and the sometimes ‘pretentious’ (Adrian) nature of much academic writing, and thus made conscious efforts to write clearly.
Closely related to language, audience (n = 9) was identified as a key difference between non-academic workplace and academic writing. Audiences of non-academic genres included policymakers, senior management, and various committees and clients who need to extract the relevant information as efficiently as possible; the document must be ‘in a digestible format that is right for the audience’ (Alice), which often necessitated ‘shorter, snappier’ (Sandra) language. Rachel explained
I think, who am I writing this for? I try and put myself in their shoes … is it going to be like a director of public health who needs to read this? In which case, I need to have a really brief bit at the beginning [so] they can read, and understand it in a few words. Literally. Because that’s all the time they’ve got … .have I got enough time to read [a] 20, 30, 40-page report? Or do I need an infographic so I can really quickly inhale that information?
What Rachel described is how audience shapes the structure and language of her writing. She connected her thinking about the audience to the purpose of the document, a sentiment alluded to, but not explicitly discussed, by all participants.
In a work setting, where the range of genres can be much more diverse and time-sensitive than the genres produced in academia, participants needed to be aware of why they were writing for the intended reader and what each document was meant to achieve. Further, while language, audience and purpose were identified as differences between academic and non-academic writing, Harriet pointed out that attention to all three is needed across all types of writing, speaking to the importance of genre knowledge and genre awareness in the ability to write across various settings.
The value of the PhD for non-academic workplace writing
All but one participant viewed the PhD as contributing value towards their workplace writing. The exception, Harriet, already had extensive research and writing experience prior to the doctorate, and thus did the PhD as a ‘bucket-list thing’ rather than to gain additional skills. The remaining ten participants identified two significant and overlapping ways in which the doctorate contributed to and facilitated their workplace writing skills: writing process and critical/systematic thinking. Only two participants (Jenny, Adrian) specifically talked about knowledge of research genres (the literature review, in both cases) as a helpful outcome of the PhD, despite the number of participants engaging in research reports.
Six participants commented that writing the PhD thesis was helpful in developing writing skills (Sandra) and familiarising themselves with the iterative nature of the writing process (Benjamin). Alice also noted that the PhD thesis helped her learn to manage feedback:
[W]hat I really find useful [from] the PhD is responding to feedback. … during my PhD [I couldn’t] pass until I understood what [supervisors] wanted and I did what they wanted. [As] a PhD student, I responded with … hurt or anger [but] now, I [don’t have] that emotional reaction … not because I’m just following people’s directions, but there are things that people who have been in it longer than me just know better.
Handling feedback was thus important and relevant to Alice’s PhD, and now work, experience. Feedback is a significant aspect of doctoral writing as the thesis is composed with supervisor support, and similarly, most participants remarked that workplace writing was highly collaborative, involving teams of co-writers or a hierarchy of feedback-giving and approvals.
Others – Erica, Simon, and Jim – described how the PhD prepared them to write for different contexts and in different genres: ‘The PhD didn’t teach me one way to write, but it taught me to learn new genres of writing and to be sensitive to different genres of writing’ (Simon). Jim provided an in-depth description of how the PhD contributed to his writing process as well as attention to audience
There’s [lots] of bullet-pointing of things, because I know, with the staff that I’m writing documents for, that’s a lot more effective than writing long blocks of prose. [Prior to] the PhD, I’d always [act] as if I was reading it and writing it for myself, and I think the PhD taught me to write for an external audience and also that different external audiences are different. [When] I was writing the thesis, I was very aware that I was writing it for the examiners, and writing it, in some ways, for the specific examiners that I wanted to examine my thesis. Whereas, when I’ve written journal articles out of my PhD, I’m writing for the journal audience and the reviewers that are the gatekeepers to getting that published … And I think that’s really what the PhD did teach me [that] writing is not just for one audience, it’s for different audiences and needs to be written in different ways for them.
Attention to audience was thus an important skill Jim developed during the doctorate that he carried over to the workplace, a clear reflection of genre awareness.
Systematic or critical thinking was also identified by four participants as useful in workplace writing. Participants noted the value of constructing a logical argument, being methodical and meticulous, and synthesising information. For example, Jenny commented upon her ability to read and analyse a number of papers in a short amount of time: ‘what the PhD teaches you to do is synthesise enormous amounts of information into some kind of an argument … So I’m able to read very quickly [and] and connect concepts and ideas’. Alice and Erica also linked critical thinking to audience awareness and writing for the intended reader: ‘[The PhD] probably made me [a more] critical, analytical thinker … it’s made me more aware of the importance of thinking about the audience, the reader, and who you’re writing for’ (Erica). The findings suggest an interrelationship between critical thinking and analysis, attention to audience (and perhaps language), and the writing process, as the ability to critically assess a writing assignment and its purpose, and therefore audience, often figure into the participants’ thinking as they structure and write a document.
Discussion
This study examined the extent to which the writing skills and knowledge developed in PhD programmes are relevant and applicable to workplace writing beyond the academy. The results suggest that for PhD holders working across a range of roles and sectors, the perceived value of the PhD stems from experiences of writing the thesis and developing critical and systematic thinking (McAlpine & Inouye, Citation2022). This includes acquiring both genre-specific knowledge of research genres and a larger sense of genre awareness (Tardy et al., Citation2020). Further, although not asked specifically about genres of writing, perceived similarities and differences between academic and non-academic workplace writing reflect the role of genre awareness in facilitating the ability to adapt to writing in different contexts. The results thus provide examples of how PhD holders drew on their genre awareness to write in workplace settings through the process of recontextualisation, evidenced by their ability to characterise the situation, and identify and carry out the appropriate genre through attention to purpose, audience, and appropriate language (Tardy et al., Citation2020).
Consistent with existing literature on the transferability and relevance of PhD skills (Diamond et al., Citation2014; Mitic & Okahana, Citation2021), the results emphasise the importance of communicating across a range of audiences. For the participants, this meant recognising the varied purposes and audiences of documents within their work contexts. At the same time, the main similarity noted by participants as to academic and non-academic writing was the need to construct an argument, which speaks to the value of critical analysis and systematic thinking as an outcome of PhD education that is applicable in a variety of work contexts (see, Bryan & Guccione, Citation2018; Diamond et al., Citation2014). This relationship between argument, analytical skills/thinking, and writing in different contexts also links to the finding that undergraduates who successfully transitioned from academic to workplace writing were those who made connections between analytical thinking and writing (Schneider & Andre, Citation2005).
Our work extends previous studies on the transferability of PhD skills to non-academic careers (Bryan & Guccione, Citation2018; Diamond et al., Citation2014; Mitic & Okahana, Citation2021), looking closely at writing as a skill that is central to doctoral education and recognising that academic and PhD genres are distinct from the genres that dominate non-academic sectors. Unlike studies exploring writing across contexts and disciplines at the undergraduate level, studies on PhDs focus more broadly on categories or types of skills identified as useful rather than on how the transfer or adaptation of skills occurs.
The genre knowledge framework proposed by Tardy et al. (Citation2020) proved useful in conceptualising how genre-specific knowledge (of research genres) and genre awareness facilitate PhD writing skill transfer. However, it must also be recognised that PhDs bring a wealth of experience – and sometimes non-academic work experience – to their doctoral programmes, and so further research delineating between the role of prior work experience and PhD training in relationship to genre knowledge is needed.
Implications
Our study suggests that the nature of doctoral writing, which involves research, analysis, attention to discipline-specific language, etc., is conducive to writing across a range of contexts, as PhDs must pay attention to the discourse communities and specific institutional requirements, mediated through examiners, for which they are writing. Genre-specific knowledge of literature reviews, which require synthesis of large amounts information, may be particularly useful in developing critical analysis skills that are applicable to non-academic genres. The thesis writing process is also useful, as the scope of the project requires engagement with feedback, and the many iterations reinforces the importance of genre awareness. PhD supervisors might call attention to genres and their audiences to aid understandings of how genres work (genre awareness). Similarly, PhDs should be encouraged to write for non-academic readers as a way of facilitating research impact and learning to communicate with different types of audiences. Further, given the increase in non-academic PhD careers and the need for more inclusive training to prepare PhDs for work across multiple sectors, future research might examine the extent to which PhD writing courses are geared towards non-academic genres and public outreach/knowledge exchange. As PhDs are key contributors to the knowledge economy, particularly as regards conducting research and spreading knowledge (OECD, Citation2013), it is important to prepare PhDs not only to write skilfully as researchers, but to write flexibly such that they can communicate for the range of purposes and in the range of settings in which doctoral graduates increasingly work.
Conclusion
This study highlighted the importance of genre awareness in PhD holders’ ability to adapt their knowledge of academic writing to the variety of workplace genres they are required to produce. In addition to understanding research and research writing, PhD education may be useful in developing writing skills and writing process knowledge, as well as the critical and analytical skills needed for recognising the importance of attention to purpose, audience, language that is central to successfully writing across genres and contexts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Kelsey Inouye
Kelsey Inouye is a Senior Researcher at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland. Her research focuses on doctoral education, research writing, and post-PhD careers.
Lynn McAlpine
Lynn McAlpine is Professor Emerita at the University of Oxford and McGill University. She is recognised internationally for her research on how PhDs navigate and experience their career trajectories both in and beyond academia.
References
- Ansong, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 200–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007002002
- Bryan, B., & Guccione, K. (2018). Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1124–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1479378
- Castello, M., Inesta, A., & Corcelles, M. (2013). Learning to write a research article: PhD students’ transitions towards disciplinary writing regulation. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(4), 442–477. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24397847
- Cayley, R. (2020). Understanding supervisory practices: Commonalities and differences in ways of working with doctoral writers. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 30, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.775
- Diamond, A., Ball, C., Vorley, T., Hughes, T., Moreton, R., Howe, P., & Nathwani, T. (2014). The impact of doctoral careers. CFE Research.
- Etmanski, B. (2019). The prospective shift away from academic career aspirations. Higher Education, 77(2), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0278-6
- Freadman, A. (1987). Anyone for tennis? In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: current debates (pp. 91–124). Deakin University.
- Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: ‘Situated learning’ and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(4), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651996010004001
- Guerin, C. (2020). Stories of moving on: HASS PhD graduates’ motivations and career trajectories inside and beyond academia. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 19(3), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022219834448
- Inouye, K. (2020). Becoming a scholar: Feedback, writing, and the doctoral research proposal [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Oxford.
- Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2004). Driven to abstraction: Doctoral supervision and writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000195358
- McAlpine, L., & Inouye, K. (2022). PhD graduates in non-academic roles: Harnessing communication knowledge to meet organizational goals. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-05-2021-0044
- McAlpine, L., Skakni, I., & Inouye, K. (2021). PhD careers beyond the traditional: Integrating individual and structural factors for a richer account. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(4), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1870242
- Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686
- Mitic, R., & Okahana, H. (2021). Don’t count them out: PhD skills development and careers in industry. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 12(2), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-03-2020-0019
- Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.12.002
- OECD. (2013). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013: Innovation for growth.
- Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary discourse in doctoral theses. Higher Education, 36(3), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003216613001
- Rudd, E., & Nerad, M. (2015). Career preparation in PhD programs: Results of a national survey of early career geographers. GeoJournal, 80(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9587-1
- Schneider, B., & Andre, J. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students in three disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943605274749
- Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and application. Cambridge University Press.
- Tardy, C., Sommer-Farias, B., & Gevers, J. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge: Toward an enhanced theoretical framework. Written Communication, 37(3), 287–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916554
- Thune, T., Kyvik, S., Sorlin, S., Olsen, T., Vabo, A., & Tomte, C. (2012). PhD education in a knowledge society: An evaluation of PhD education in Norway. Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
- Vitae. (2016). What research staff do next. https://www.vitae.ac.uk/impact-and-evaluation/what-do-researchers-do/WDRSDN/what-do-research-staff-do-next