Context

In the not distant past, universities by and large viewed their educational role more in terms of the altruistic transfer of knowledge than in terms of developing work-relevant skills and competencies in their students. In the last decade or two, though, with employers calling for graduates better prepared for the workforce, the higher education sector has increasingly acknowledged it has a fundamental role to play in actively preparing students for life post-studies. Strategies designed to boost graduate outcomes and ensure workplace readiness of students sprang to life in many universities. Now, considerations of how to foster generic learning outcomes – known in the higher education sector as ‘graduate attributes’ – that will be used in the workplace increasingly drive higher education programme structures. Work Integrated Learning programmes support the integration of learning from study with learning in workplaces, government, business and industry (Cooper et al., Reference COOPER, ORRELL and BOWDEN2010). Capstone courses – final-year courses aiming to synthesise and apply prior learning, and help develop in students a professional identity to facilitate their transition to employment – have become a common strategy for many institutions (Kift et al., Reference KIFT, BAILEY, ANDREWS, GRAY, VAN ACKER and WOODS2011). Service learning and community engagement activities educate students for civic and social responsibility, important to life beyond the degree (ETR Associates, 2013).

In most cases, with rare exceptions, these activities are designed and implemented for the undergraduate level. In postgraduate masters degrees based on coursework, the prevalence of professionally oriented activities varies significantly from country to country, institution to institution, and discipline to discipline, though it is not unusual for them to be offered or even required as a part of a programme. In Australia, where this study is based, fee-paying coursework post-graduate degrees tend to be more industry focused while Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) students receive little by way of structured activities and, consequently, little guidance about preparing for employment. This less than desirable situation is arguably a function of higher research degrees, which characteristically (in the UK and Australia, at least) contain limited or no coursework. Nevertheless, the doctorate is still considered the entry-level qualification for a career in academia.

The Australian government ensures that HDR programmes are provided fee-free to domestic students, with an expectation that higher education institutions will respond to that generosity by contributing an appropriate level of training that matches employer and industry needs. As Chan and Parker (Reference CHAN and PARKER2007) observe of the Australian context, this has tended to give rise to government and university surveys and evaluations that examine and assess issues relating to the postgraduate research experience, including resourcing, training, institutional support and the quality of supervision (e.g. Borthwick & Wissler, Reference BORTHWICK and WISSLER2003). Academic research investigating HDR graduate capabilities and competencies has also flowed from this, and the issue has found its way firmly onto the research agenda in the last decade (Aanerud et al., Reference AANERUD, HOMER, NERAD, CERNY, Maki and Borkowski2006; Buckley et al., Reference BUCKLEY, BROGAN, FLYNN, MONKS, HOGAN and ALEXOPOLOUS2009; Enders, Reference ENDERS2004; Gilbert et al., Reference GILBERT, BALATTI, TURNER and WHITEHOUSE2004; Kiley & Mullins, Reference KILEY and MULLINS2004; Manathunga et al., Reference MANATHUNGA, LANT and MELLICK2007; Pearson et al., Reference PEARSON, EVANS and MACAULEY2004). Nevertheless, academic research into the issue of workplace readiness among HDR students is relatively scarce compared with that relating to undergraduate students.

This paper explores the perceptions of music HDR students about their work readiness, and critically examines these against desirable graduate capabilities and industry and workforce needs. The student participants in the study have projects that largely focus on music performance, and therefore the outcomes are not purely related to preparation for careers in higher education. This research was conducted within the context of a wider Australian-led research project that aimed to improve pedagogical practices and learning outcomes in music higher research degrees, and to identify innovative strategies to support successful practices (Harrison, Reference HARRISON2013).

Graduate capabilities and workplace readiness in music

This article seeks to illuminate those aspects of the study that related to graduate attributes. For some areas of tertiary study, like (arguably) dentistry or teaching, the specific qualities and capabilities required of graduates may be relatively easily identified, and therefore fostered. In others, including music, they are elusive. One reason for this is the diversity of possible paths a music graduate may take after completing studies. Hannan (Reference HANNAN2003) outlines over 150 possible careers in music, categorised into the broad areas of composition, performance, production, instrument making and repairing, broadcasting, music business, retailing and wholesaling, teaching, writing and research, arts administration, music therapy, libraries, archives and information services, and digital and online employment. In many cases, a ‘portfolio’ career that combines diverse employment arrangements and activities will eventuate, demanding an equally diverse bank of skills (Bartleet et al., Reference BARTLEET, BENNETT, BRIDGSTOCK, DRAPER, HARRISON and SCHIPPERS2012). This is true for HDR students too, for whom not only academic skills but also robust employability (that is, a diverse and relevant skill-set) are increasingly essential (Cumming et al., Reference CUMMING, KILEY, THOMAS, HORT, PIKE, EVANS and MAIN2009).

Another reason for the elusiveness of desirable graduate attributes in music sector is the disquieting pace of change of career opportunities and practices in the music industry, at a time when universities in general are ‘prepar[ing] graduates for careers not yet imagined’ and when students are likely to engage in ‘a lifetime of specialised work requiring multiple advanced skill sets in which they will continually learn and re-learn skills for performance in roles that may not have been invented yet’ (Bridgstock & Hearn, Reference BRIDGSTOCK, HEARN, Rooney, Hearn and Ninan2012, p. 108). For a cohort of music HDR students moving through a 3- or 4-year doctoral programme, it is eminently conceivable that the industry and workforce needs shift to an extent that those skills and capabilities that were deemed most desirable at the start of their degree are no longer so by the end of it.

Given these heightened challenges to employability and workforce readiness particular to the music sector, it is perhaps not surprising – but still worrying – that almost half of all students who participated in the survey felt only ‘a little prepared’ or ‘not prepared’ for life beyond their degree (24 of 51 respondents, or 47%), and that this sentiment arose also in student dialogue forums and interviews. The survey responses of some students suggested that their anxiety about life post-graduation was a function of challenging employment circumstances and lack of job opportunities. One placed this in the context of her limited work experience:

Some other students expressed doubt that their research studies would be useful in terms of finding suitable employment:

For other students, though, the concerns raised about life-post-studies related less to the availability of suitable employment opportunities than to their own perceived insufficiencies. Several students felt trepidation for this reason:

Another student felt confident in knowing the requirements to pursue an academic career, but felt incapable of executing them, and therefore felt ‘little prepared’ for life beyond studies:

Student participants in this study generally indicated an awareness of the need for a well-rounded skill set upon graduation, including generic skills to stand them in good stead in the face of changing work or industry practices. Students reported that a wide range of study-related experiences contributed positively to their learning, including presenting at conferences; participating in faculty-based colloquia and seminars, university-wide training sessions, and reading and writing groups; reading other dissertations; reading books on the research process; preparing articles for peer review; networking with colleagues; interacting with visiting professionals and researchers; accessing website-based institutional training resources; engaging in reflective practice and observation, and becoming involved in ‘the practical side’ of the research field beyond their studies. With regard to the content of supervision, survey results revealed that students felt it was most important for their supervisors to advise them on professional development opportunities, publishing, scholarships, symposia, and other matters that may have an impact on their ‘overall progression and development’ during their studies and beyond. One student, for example, stated the importance of supervisory advice about:

Supervisors, on the other hand, generally found it more important that supervision focus on the more technical aspects of research, such as locating resources (33 of 47, or 70%, of survey respondents felt this was ‘very important’), developing writing skills (30, or 64%), and academic protocols and processes (28, or 60%). All supervisors (n = 50) felt that it was ‘very important’ or ‘quite important’ for their students to develop research methods and writing skills. Despite these opinions about the content of supervision, however, the supervisors generally placed slightly more weight than students on importance of supplementary research education: 35 of 48 (73%) supervisors felt that presenting at conferences were a ‘very valuable’ part of their students’ research education, as opposed to 53% of students, for example. Supervisors reflected on a number of other experiences not mentioned directly in the survey that had a positive effect on their students’ learning, including preparing journal articles, school-based (creative arts) seminars, public presentations, media interviews, performances, workshops, training in research and writing skills, reading, travel, studies abroad, and work experience.

The disparity between perceptions of students and supervisors on their preferred content of research supervision, combined with the indication that supervisors believe supplementary activities to be important to their students, points to some potential mismatched conceptions about the supervisory role. Arguably, the kinds of skills emphasised in the current one-to-one model of HDR supervision in music (as in other disciplines) centre on cognitive and discipline-specific skills, like the following three skills identified in the Australian Qualifications Framework guidelines as required of doctoral-level graduates:

• • cognitive skills to demonstrate expert understanding of theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on that theory and practice

• • cognitive skills and use of intellectual independence to think critically, evaluate existing knowledge and ideas, undertake systematic investigation and reflect on theory and practice to generate original knowledge

• • expert technical and creative skills applicable to the field of work or learning (AQF, 2013).

Less likely to be explicitly taught or developed through traditional models of HDR supervision (or even HDR education more broadly) are practical workplace skills, including those social capabilities relating to communication, presentation, and networking (among other things) that are necessary for musicians to maintain a career (Bennett, n.d.). The isolation of the musician's early training (working alone in practice rooms for many hours) is also a factor here. The musician participants in Bennett's study emphasised that ‘communication skills are imperative to a musician's ability to create and sustain professional networks, and are essential to musicians’ practice regardless of their roles’ (‘skills’ section); they also highlighted the need for business and entrepreneurial acumen:

Possible roles of the HDR music supervisor may be clarified through recourse to the series of approaches to teaching and learning outlined by Pratt (Reference PRATT1992), which range from ‘engineering’ (delivering) on the one end of the spectrum of control to ‘social reform’ (seeking a better society) on the other (see Figure 1). Recently, this framework has been usefully invoked in relation to pedagogical approaches to one-to-one music tuition: Gaunt et al. (Reference GAUNT, CREECH, LONG and HALLAM2012) argue that Pratt's ‘nurturing’ and ‘social reform’ are more aligned with a mentoring-style relationship that many students appreciate and desire, whereas some research indicates that a one-to-one learning context ‘can result in outcomes that contradict the goals of a mentoring approach’ since students risk developing a passive approach to learning and over-dependency on the ‘teacher’ (p. 27). Comparably, the findings of this present study indicate that the participating HDR music students tended to value supervisory content that aligned with a ‘nurturing’ and ‘social reform’ approach to HDR education, while supervisors tended to placed importance on an approach somewhere towards the middle or other end of Pratt's scale.

Figure 3.

Pratt's series of approaches to teaching and learning (Reference PRATT1992).

Preparing work-ready HDR music graduates

Quite aside from the disparity in student and supervisor concepts of what constitutes quality supervision, it appears distinctly unlikely that all eight dimensions of graduate capability identified by Cumming et al. (Reference CUMMING, KILEY, THOMAS, HORT, PIKE, EVANS and MAIN2009) – inquiring, analysing, producing, communicating, teaching, managing, thinking and interacting – may be soundly acquired through the one-to-one model of research supervision, the default model of research pedagogy in higher degrees. As Lee and Green note, ‘despite growing recognition that doctoral education is a ‘shared responsibility’ among many participants, there is a persistent administrative and conceptual defaulting to the one-to-one relationship’ (Reference LEE and GREEN2009, p. 616). As with other forms of music pedagogy, the responsibility for the students’ success does not rest solely with the supervisor–student dyad. In undergraduate music performance, a team of teachers – one-to-one teacher; the orchestra conductor; the chamber music coach; the musicianship and music history lecturers assist the student. This remains true for music and other creative disciplines, many of which are relative newcomers to the university context. All institutions represented in this study had in place a system of HDR education that included one-to-one supervision, though many also offered supplementary activities for research education, such as HDR forums and seminars.

Like undergraduate music students, HDR music candidates need a team approach as they:

The diversity of desirable graduate capabilities implies the necessity of an equally diverse model of research education. Some of Cummings’ eight dimensions of capability (like inquiring and analysing) may be best acquired through structured learning, such as formal courses so often absent in the HDR experience. Other capabilities (like communicating and thinking) may be more easily developed through semi-structured (peer-learning, dialogue, mentoring) or even unstructured learning (like student-initiated internships or through paid employment).

The future for HDR?

How, then, to better prepare music HDR students for life beyond their studies? Manathunga and Goozée (Reference MANATHUNGA and GOOZÉE2007) assert that current models of research education are based on the false assumptions that students have the skills to work autonomously and that academics know how to be effective supervisors because they were once students. If this is true, the necessity of exploring new models of research education is urgent. New models of hold promise to improve graduate outcomes and better prepare students for life post-degree (in addition to other benefits, such as reducing isolation and building stronger support networks; (Harrison, Reference HARRISON2013; Harrison and Dwyer, Reference HARRISON and DWYER2014). In line with the recommendation of Boud and Lee (Reference BOUD and LEE2005) that ‘more systematic attention . . . be paid to the breadth and diversity of learning activities and relationships in research education’, the findings of the current study suggest that music HDR program structures might move beyond traditional dyadic models of student-supervisor to a model where a supervisor is only one of many resources at the students’ disposal (see ([author name removed], under review). Besides, HDR music students come from a wide range of backgrounds, professional experience, and life experience, and a diversity of research education approaches seems best placed to cater for the range of needs arising from this situation.

Clearly, HDR music students also need to be assisted to develop adaptive and flexible approaches to learning, since desirable capabilities of music HDR graduates in the workforce are as vicissitudinous as the music industry itself. By developing this ability, students build a resilience that prepares them well for dealing with challenges that arise in the course of their careers, and in life beyond studies generally (Carey et al., Reference CAREY, BRIDGSTOCK, MCWILLIAM, TAYLOR and GRANT2013); it also helps develop the entrepreneurial skills that are increasingly needed to forge a successful career in the arts (Bridgstock, Reference BRIDGSTOCK2013). Gaunt et al. raises this issue in relation to undergraduate music students, and it remains true for HDR students too:

Students who are most likely to successfully find employment in their chosen field post-studies will have developed both generic and discipline-specific skills, where generic skills and attributes are those with ‘a direct connection to the students’ employability regardless of their research topic and/or discipline base’ (Chan & Parker, Reference CHAN and PARKER2007). Many music HDR students build their practice-based (discipline-specific) skills during their studies; some already have a robust professional identity and practice before they even commence higher degree research. Relevantly, Chan and Parker suggest that the development of generic skills may be particularly pertinent to postgraduate research students from a studio-based background (they refer to design studies, but their comment is equally applicable to music HDR students), who may need to further develop their skills in areas such as academic writing, conference presentations and grant applications. Those authors also note that academics ‘may not be in the position to supervise as well as teach all aspects of generic skills’, and conclude that this indicates a need to provide generic skills training for teaching staff (Chan & Parker, Reference CHAN and PARKER2007). An alternative and arguably more sustainable solution (given the typically heavy academic workloads) would be to diversify research education activities and resources for students, as recommended earlier.

Whatever the model of supervision, one implication of this study for supporting HDR students is that, in addition to developing research-related technical skills and cognitive or intellectual capabilities, students need and want guidance or mentoring in matters relating to the development of their professional skills and identity. One step towards this end may be the model of research education, used by some institutions represented in this study, wherein the responsibility for a single student is distributed and shared among a team of supervisors, whose various skills and strengths may then aid the student in complementary ways. This model enables the provision of more rounded support and a wider range of approaches to learning than would be possible from a single supervisor (Harrison & Dwyer, Reference HARRISON and DWYER2014). Another possible strategy that develops flexibility in learning is the ‘collaborative cohort model’ (CCM) of HDR supervision (Burnett, Reference BURNETT1999), where students meet to discuss their own and other students’ research, facilitated by a mentor academic. Burnett found that students who attended these meetings were not only more likely to complete their studies, but also developed a wider range of skills than those who did not. Other collaborative models of learning, peer learning and mentoring approaches (Renshaw, Reference RENSHAW2009) may also prove useful.