No 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.

Doctoral scientists increasingly forge non-academic careers after completing the doctorate. Governments and industry in advanced economies welcome this trend, since it complements the 'knowledge economy' vision that has come to dominate higher education globally. Knowledge economy stakeholders consider doctoral scientists to constitute particularly high-value human capital; primed to contribute to economic growth via the creation and application of scientific knowledge. Little is known, however, about doctoral scientists' awareness of, and attitudes towards, the knowledge economy. This paper reports a study of UK doctoral scientists, which reveals they are aware of, but ideologically divided towards, the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy relates to their scientific motivations, values, and aspirations in complex ways. Four moral positions emerge, ranging from 'anti' to 'pro' knowledge economy. We discuss the characteristics of each moral position, concluding with the need for doctoral scientists to adopt better informed and more flexible professional outlooks.

Creativity is necessary for doctoral students to gain their degrees and for postdoctoral researchers to distinguish themselves. It is, however, a contested concept -which is troubling given its current prominence within dominant discourses in higher education. On the one hand, universities are expected to populate a knowledge economy with creative researchers. On the other hand, there are concerns that the impact agenda is having a 'deadening' effect upon creativity. This research explores the broad range of definitions of creativity amongst science and engineering researchers, some of which are surprisingly restricted. It also discusses researchers' views on the role of creativity in their work. Finally, it poses timely questions, both about the impact of the dominant discourses, and the role of the academy in shaping and challenging them.

Changes to undergraduate student funding arrangements in England have prompted concerns that increased indebtedness will deter graduates from postgraduate study. While it is clear that student debt has increased substantially in recent years, international evidence is equivocal on whether such debt is a deterrent to further study and there is hardly any prior research on this topic in the UK context. Using a large‐scale survey of 2009 and 2012 graduates from six selective English universities, we investigate the association between undergraduate debt, other graduate characteristics and progression to postgraduate study. We find some association of higher debt levels with lower rates of progression to postgraduate study, although this reduces when controlling for other factors, such as degree‐level attainment and subject discipline. Within a multivariate logistic regression model predicting progression to postgraduate study we find that debt is not a statistically significant predictor, although other characteristics are important. This indicates, we suggest, that underlying financial resources, rather than debt per se, are critical in enabling access to postgraduate study. We consider the implications of recently announced loans for postgraduate study in England given these findings.