Advertisement

Labour Market Outcomes for Ph.D. Graduates

  • Antonella D’Agostino
  • Giulio Ghellini
Conference paper
Part of the Contributions to Statistics book series (CONTRIB.STAT.)

Abstract

In the international framework a high presence of Ph.D. graduates in the labour market has often been identified as a key factor for innovation and for creating technological progress. The Ph.D. graduates are at the same time the most qualified people in terms of educational attainment and those who are trained and most inclined for research careers, therefore they are expected to contribute to the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and technologies. Recently a work at the OECD has raised a number of questions about their education-to-work transition, employment and mobility patterns [4] and one of the aim of the established organization of European Ph.D. students [9] was to improve working and studying conditions for young scientists in order to increase their commitment on European research and to improve the outcomes of European science. Consequentially in Europe it is becoming more and more frequent the adoption of well defined survey design on this population for monitoring their working careers. In spite of that, in Italy the information framework on training and working experience of Ph.D.s. seems to be quite inadequate and fragmented [20], even if Ph.D. studies have been introduced more than 20 years ago.

Keywords

Labour Market Labour Market Outcome Previous Work Experience Hourly Earning Monthly Earning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Abravanel R (2008) Meritocrazia. Quattro proposte concrete per valorizzare il talento e rendere il nostro paese piú ricco e piú giusto. Garzanti Libri, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AlmaLaurea (2006) Employment condition of Graduates-2005 Survey. www.almalaurea.it
  3. 3.
    AlmaLaurea (2007) Employment condition of Graduates-2006 Experimental Survey. www.almalaurea.it
  4. 4.
    Auriol L (2004) Conclusions of workshop (DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2004)28). OECD workshop on user needs for indicators on careers of doctorate holders, September 27, 2004, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Auriol L, Felix B, Fernandez-Polcuch E (2007) Mapping careers and mobility of doctorate holders: draft guidelines, model questionnaire and indicators. OECD STI working paper 2007/6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Copas JB, Li HG (1997) Inference for non-random samples. J R Stat Soc B 59(1):55–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Copas JB, Eguchi S (2001) Local sensitivity approximations for selectivity bias. J R Stat Soc B 63(4):871–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enders J (2002) Serving many masters: the Ph.D. on the labor market, the ever-lasting need of inequality, and the premature death of Humboldt. Higher Educ 44:493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EURODOC (2007) http://www.eurodoc.net
  10. 10.
    Ghellini G, Mulas A (2007) Indagine sui percorsi lavorativi dei Dottori di Ricerca: aspetti di metodo e primi risultati. Paper presented at DIVAGO workshop, 27–29 Sept, University of PalermoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heckman JJ (1978) Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica 47(4):931–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinelli D (1999) Labor market performance of French Ph.D.s: a statistical analysis. Céreq, MarseilleGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mangematin V (2000) Ph.D. job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the Ph.D. Res Policy 29:741–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nerad M, Cerny J (1999) Postdoctoral patterns, career advancement and problems. Science 285:1533–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski J, Van Voewyk J, Solenberger P (2001) A multivariate technique for imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Surv Methodol 27:85–95Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenbaum PR (1987) Sensitivity analysis for certain permutation inferences in matched observational studies. Biometrika 74:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scarabottolo N (2007) Alcune analisi sugli sbocchi occupazionali dei dottori di ricerca dell’Università degli Studi di Milano, Rapporto Finale, Università degli Studi di Milano – Nucleo di Valutazione dell’AteneoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stephan P, Levin S (1991) Ph.D. Supply. Issues Sci Technol 7:28–29Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stephan P, Everhart SS (1998) The changing rewards to science: the case of biotechnology. Small Bus Econ 10:141–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stirati A, Cesarotto S (1995) The Italian Ph.D. ten years on: educational, scientific and occupational outcomes. Higher Educ 30:37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Troxel AB, Guoguang Ma, Heitjan DF (2004) An index of local sensitivity to ignorability. Stat Sin 14:1221–1237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Statistica e Matematica per la Ricerca EconomicaUniversità di Napoli ParthenopeNapoliItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Metodi QuantitativiUniversitá di SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations