Incongruent

PhD P2 - Finding the Perfect PhD Topic: Balancing Personal Passion with Market Needs

• The Incongruables • Episode 2

Share episode

Spill the tea - we want to hear from you!

Embark on an intellectual odyssey with us as we unveil the secrets to pinpointing the academic "Goldilocks zone" for PhD research topics—a pursuit that's neither too mainstream nor too obscure. Our journey in this episode is expertly guided by analytical titans like Google Trends and the Gartner Technology Hype Cycle, tools that arm scholars with the foresight to navigate the ever-shifting terrain of academic interests. We probe the symbiotic relationship between personal academic curiosity and the pulsating heart of collective scholarly wisdom, framing a PhD thesis that interweaves with the transformative themes of education and student employability.

Wading into the complex waters of employability, we confront the stark contrasts between modernist metrics and post-modernist ideals, heralding a metamodernist approach that melds both to better align with the evolving job market. We illuminate the significance of mixed methods research in shaping education to fulfill the dynamic needs of employers. Join us as we dissect the transformative role of industry-organized competitions in enhancing graduate skills, a topic ripe with implications for curriculum reform and the future of higher education. This episode promises a compelling blend of theory, practice, and visionary foresight, pivotal for those invested in bridging the academia-industry divide.

 Welcome back, dedicated listeners, to The Incongruent, where we unravel the intricacies of academia.

In the previous episode, we navigated through the labyrinth of industry-organized competitions, exploring the researcher's personal journey . In this episode, we explore the significance of aligning research interests, the importance of a supportive academic community, and the potential nexus between the researcher's focus and the expertise of the chosen university. It's a dance between individual aspirations and the collective knowledge of a scholarly community.

The odyssey continues, and with every step, we uncover the multifaceted nature of a PhD pursuit. So, settle in and prepare to be enlightened as we traverse the academic landscape in the second part of this enlightening series. This is The Incongruent, and your intellectual adventure awaits. Let's dive in! 

EPISODE 2

 Part 4. Discovering Goldilocks' domain of inquiry with Google & Gartner

 Embarking on the third installment of this series, I delve into an essential consideration—whether the chosen subject of my PhD thesis aligns with Chad Perry's criterion of occupying a "warm" area of research. This metaphorical Goldilocks zone implies a balance, avoiding the extremes of being either "cold" and overworked or residing in a "hot," overly competitive domain that may soon lose its relevance.

To navigate this critical evaluation, I employ three distinct tools: Google Trends, Google Ngrams, and the Gartner Technology Hype Cycle. These analytical instruments are instrumental in providing insights that will guide me in determining the optimal space for the final output of my study.

Google Trends, a dynamic tool reflecting the popularity of search terms over time, offers a real-time pulse of public interest. By examining the trajectory of relevant keywords associated with my research, I aim to gauge the ongoing resonance of the chosen subject. This exploration will illuminate whether the topic is currently gaining momentum, plateauing, or potentially waning in public interest.

Google Ngrams, on the other hand, provides a historical perspective by analyzing the frequency of terms in a vast corpus of books. This tool aids in uncovering the longevity and enduring relevance of the subject matter within academic and literary discourse. A comprehensive analysis of relevant keywords through Google Ngrams will offer valuable insights into the historical ebbs and  flows of interest in my chosen domain.

Finally, the Gartner Technology Hype Cycle, a tool commonly employed in the technology sector, maps the trajectory of emerging technologies from inception to widespread adoption. By analogously applying this cycle to the subject of my research, I seek to identify whether the topic is currently in a nascent phase, reaching its peak, or potentially on the decline. This aids in positioning my study within the broader context of technological and academic trends.

Through this strategic utilization of these three tools, I endeavor to gain a nuanced understanding of the temporal and contextual dimensions surrounding my chosen subject. The amalgamation of insights derived from Google Trends, Google Ngrams, and the Gartner Technology Hype Cycle will be instrumental in determining the optimal niche for my research output—a space that is not only academically relevant but also strategically positioned within the broader landscape of contemporary discourse. This exploration marks a crucial step in ensuring that my PhD thesis thrives in the dynamic interplay between scholarly inquiry and the evolving currents of public and academic interest.

Part 5 Be in an area of‘warm’ research activity rather than in a ‘cold’, overworked area or in a`hot', too-competitive, soon-to-be extinguished area

 The initial task at hand is to delineate the domain within which my proposed research finds its place. Recognizing that industry awards, in themselves, do not constitute a standalone domain, I acknowledge their status as a component embedded within a broader and more precisely defined subject. The foundational roots of this study lie in the realm of transformational education practices—initiatives germinating at the grassroots of teaching that have the potential to ascend and become integral components of corporate policies and curricula. A pivotal question emerges: does this research align more closely with the domain of curriculum design?

In the earlier set of blog posts, vocational education emerged as the designated area of focus. This prompts a reconsideration: is vocational education a more fitting domain to direct my research efforts?

A Google Trends search does not distinctly separate the two, although a Google NGram analysis reveals a discernible decline in the number of articles related to vocational education. This decline may signify that this area has grown 'cold' per Perry's criteria, yet the  higher position on the graph hints at a potentially 'warmer' status.

Surprisingly, a Google NGram search exposes a decline in both domains, challenging my initial assumptions given the considerable attention both receive in mainstream media. This prompts a reevaluation, considering another area related to vocational education that extends to theoretical study—employability. Here, a glimmer of warmth is evident.

A clear growth trend emerges for employability, sustained over several years and surpassing the other two potential domains. Following Perry's insightful guidance, I opt to reposition my study to delve into the impact of participation in industry-organized awards on student employability.

Although not directly related, considering my recent exploration of Gartner Hype Cycles, I reference the 2022 edition focused on higher education. While technology-centric, the four highlighted themes underscore challenges that institutions must address, either through new infrastructure or policy adjustments.

There are six areas of high or transformational importance. These include Adaptive Learning Platforms, Citizen Developers, Education Analytics, Scenario Planning, Digital Credentials, and Robotic Process Automation.

While these areas may not register on Google NGram, there's a possibility that industry-organized awards, albeit in a less tech-oriented manner, could contribute to achieving these priority goals. Hence, they warrant consideration within a broader thesis framework, offering potential insights into how they align with transformative themes in education.

Part 6. Ensuring topic addresses a genuine research area

 As I navigate the terrain of the chosen domain, which revolves around the impact of industry-organized competitions on employability, Perry's counsel echoes in my pursuit. To position my study effectively, I must align it with the main currents of a discipline, avoiding the periphery, and refrain from straddling disparate disciplines. This strategic approach not only facilitates the identification of suitable supervisors and examiners but also enhances the likelihood of acceptance within high-impact journals.

The initial step involves a comprehensive exploration of current issues pertaining to employability on a broader scale. By adhering to Perry's advice, I aim to pinpoint the most critical issues within this overarching theme. To undertake this task, I turn to Publish or Perish, leveraging its capabilities to  📍 identify systematic literature reviews on employability.

Commencing this exploration, I delve into the work of a team of researchers led by Abelha et al. Their systematic review promises to provide a foundational understanding of the current landscape surrounding employability. Following this, I shift my focus to the contributions of van Harten et al., seeking insights that may further delineate key issues and trends in the employability discourse. My exploration culminates with an examination of the work by Sharma and Bhattarai, adding their perspective to the evolving narrative on employability.

This sequential engagement with systematic literature reviews serves as a robust starting point, allowing me to synthesize and distill essential insights from the existing body of knowledge. By aligning my research with the most pertinent and central themes identified through this process, I aim to carve a niche within the broader domain of employability. This strategic positioning not only aids in refining the focus of my thesis but also enhances its relevance and potential impact within the academic landscape.

In adhering to Perry's guidance, I am laying the groundwork for a study that not only addresses a critical dimension of employability but also aligns seamlessly with the core currents of the discipline. This deliberate approach sets the stage for a research endeavor that is not only well-positioned within the academic discourse but also poised for meaningful contributions to the understanding of the role of industry-organized competitions in shaping employability outcomes.

Part 7 Graduate Employability and Competence Development in Higher Education—A Systematic Literature Review Using PRISMA

 Abelha's team conducted a comprehensive exploration of published studies spanning the period 2009-2019, analyzing a corpus of 69 papers. Their findings yielded six key topics, each with implications for various stakeholders, and I've endeavored to map these against selected stakeholders based on my perceived areas of concern.

The three outer areas of the diagram are initially discounted. While an award could serve as a validation instrument, its limited availability within specific industry domains renders it less utilitarian for a broader audience of universities and graduates. Similarly, aspects such as improved self-confidence or "self-perceived employability" and transitioning to practice are excluded from my chosen focal points due to their generalization and fleeting nature.

This scrutiny leads me to delve into how awards address the perceived mismatch between employers' and graduates' skills. While acknowledging potential challenges in researching subjective "perceptions," especially considering the variables involved, I foresee the value in exploring this topic. Even with tools like the Global Capability Framework, disagreements and interpretations persist, making it an intriguing area to investigate, given the volume of research papers on the subject.

This leaves me with the exploration of how industry-organized awards can enhance employability by promoting specific skills. Abelha et al. pinpoint three specific skills—communication, teamwork, and digital competences—that resonate with scholars. The hackathon format aligns with the first two skills, while the submission-based model is conducive to developing digital competences. This sparks immediate inspiration to investigate how certain bodies utilize awards as catalysts, encouraging graduates to venture into new realms of knowledge. An exemplary case is the University Innovation Programme by Expo City.

In the recent month, my engagement with two prominent competitions—the Dubai Expo's University Innovation Programme and Pearl Initiative's Youth Impact Lab—exemplifies this trend. Both initiatives aim to inspire youth to develop entrepreneurial solutions for climate change, anticipating COP28 in the UAE in December.

Furthermore, competitions like the International Communications Consultancy Organisation Inter-university PR World Cup and the upcoming Dubai Lynx International Festival of Creativity student awards present opportunities for teams to tackle real-world challenges, often focusing on social issues. The Middle East Public Relations Association's Arab Awards and events like the ITP Media Group and Commercial Interior Design award ceremony also play pivotal roles in encouraging students to showcase their skills and contribute to societal issues. These instances underscore the multifaceted impact of industry-organized competitions on shaping the skill sets and perspectives of emerging professionals.

Part 8 Taking the temperature of employability research: a systematic review of interrelationships across and within conceptual strands

 Van Harten and his team have shed light on a potential pitfall that I inadvertently stumbled upon in my analysis of the paper  discussed above. They caution against a blinkered approach to alternative epistemologies, which, when applied to employability studies, can lead to a fragmented library of literature. The concepts of premodern science, modernity, and post-modernity provide a lens through which this fragmentation can be understood.

In the premodern context, the focus lies on students' self-efficacy and their belief in their employability post-university. This aligns with the previous literature review under the theme "Undergraduate self-perceived employability".

For modernists, employability is quantified by tracking the successful transition of graduates into employment related to their field of study. Factors such as starting salary and speed of promotion become crucial considerations. Papers exploring "Transition to practice and the role of internships" would likely fall into this category. Modernists also seek to identify strategies to fill skills gaps through the "Development and validation of an instrument," such as micro-certificates or encouraging the "Development of specific skills".

Post-modernists, on the other hand, prioritize the quality of roles acquired through non-capitalist criteria, such as graduate satisfaction and alignment with their lifestyle. They confront the challenge of addressing the "Match or Mismatch between University Graduates’ Competences and Employers’ Needs".

Van Harten's study reveals an attempt to address the self-perceived employability aspect - premodern - and strategies for evaluating personal strengths and successful transitions - modern. As an emerging, pragmatic metamodernist, I acknowledge the limitations of arguments based solely on irony.

Metamodernism manifests within the research team's philosophy, aiming to demonstrate how one "modern" stream impacts the other two "based on [post-modern] intuition rather than evidence".

This figure supports the choice of employability as the domain for my potential PhD. The upward trend from 2011 indicates sustained research interest, aligning with the findings from Google NGram and Google Trends. Van Harten's team notes that "almost half of the studies were published between 2017 and 2019".

In contrast to Abelha's team, which identified teamwork, communication, and digital competences as crucial, van Harten et al.'s evaluation describes required strengths across four dimensions: "human capital, social capital, adaptability, and self-awareness" .
While Harten's team conducts a detailed analysis of various models and tools, they acknowledge the inherent weakness of  these tools in capturing the complexity of human society. The majority of studies focus on human capital/digital competences, likely recommending strategies for "Developing specific skills." Only a few explore the successful transition between roles, a nuanced area requiring more interpretation.

Despite positive studies on strengths and skill development, there persists a perceived "Match or Mismatch between University Graduates’ Competences and Employers’ Needs" . Attempting to contribute to this discourse using the same ontology and tools would be naive, reflecting what can be considered 'Naïve realism'. A significant methodological takeaway from this study is the recommendation for a longitudinal approach—a fitting consideration for a PhD project.

Part 9. Mixed Methods Research in Employability Discourse: A Systematic Literature Review Using PRISMA   

I now recognize the need to embrace a meta-modernist approach. This approach aims to build upon the existing mainstream of work that explores strengths, human capital, and digital competences, while also introducing an interpretative lens to address the nuanced aspect of the "Match or Mismatch between University Graduates’ Competences and Employers’ Needs". Such an endeavor requires a mixed-methods approach, a sentiment echoed by other researchers who have deemed a systematic review of Mixed Methods Research necessary and valuable for publication.

According to Sharma and Bhattarai's study, the research landscape in the field of employability is predominantly dominated by quantitative research methods, particularly surveys and comparative analyses employing cross-sectional and longitudinal data. This aligns with the findings of van Harten and colleagues above, where the two dominant streams identified in their study align with positivist epistemologies.

The insights gleaned from Sharma and Bhattarai's study support employability as the chosen domain for this PhD project, and the trending approach for research in this area is mixed-methods. The authors also shed light on a literature gap, pointing out that two major stakeholders, employers and governments, are "largely ignored" in existing studies. Additionally, the study highlights the need for more emphasis on the reliability and validity of research, potentially explained by the challenges of navigating ethical considerations and the complexity of obtaining sufficient data for evaluation. The lack of discussion on limitations and validity may be  attributed to a cautious approach, indicated by the "do not harm" security blanket.

Despite these acknowledged weaknesses, the study advocates for MMR, recognizing its potential to contribute valuable insights to the employability discourse. MMR is seen as a tool that can offer rich insights supporting institutional decision-making, particularly in areas such as curriculum reforms and strategy development.

Given this evaluation and drawing from insights gained at the University of Johannesburg's Strategic Communications conference, it is evident that my study should adopt a mixed-methods approach. This approach is essential for examining both how industry-organized competitions contribute to the "Development of specific skills" - Causal - and the impact on employers' perceived "Match or Mismatch between University Graduates’ Competences and Employers’ Needs"  - Interpretative. Furthermore, the study provides guidance on a suitable sample size, recommending 200-500 participants for the causal stage and 15 for the interpretive phase.

 END OF EPISODE 2

And there you have it, the conclusion of the second part in our enlightening series on the pursuit of a PhD, intricately woven with the fabric of academia and industry collaboration. As we stand at the precipice of the next episode, awaiting the unfolding chapters of this academic saga, I urge you to subscribe to The Incongruent if you haven't already. Your journey through the corridors of academia has just begun. 

If this episode resonated with you, if the pursuit of knowledge and the interplay between theory and practice strike a chord, show your support by hitting that subscribe button. Like, share, and let your thoughts echo in the comments below. Your engagement fuels our intellectual exploration, creating a community where ideas thrive.

Embarking on the third installment of this series, we invite you to be part of this ongoing narrative. Stay tuned, stay engaged, and let the intellectual adventure continue. This is The Incongruent, signing off for now. Until next time, fellow seekers of knowledge, farewell!