An exploration of employer perceptions of graduate student employability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore employer perceptions of graduate student employability. This study is novel since existing research focused on employability is largely theoretic, remains focused on defining employability of undergraduates and largely fails to determine employer perceptions of factors that increase or decrease employability of graduate students. Design/methodology/approach Using a two-phased approach, the authors analyzed 122 employer assessments of graduate students at a Canadian university who completed a work-term with the employer in either 2014 or 2015. The authors also collected individual data (e.g. academic achievement, work experience) from student files at the university. Phase 1 involved an exploratory factor analysis to derive factors influencing employer perceptions of employability. Phase 2 expand on factors identified in phase 1 through assessment of 153 written comments using a critical incident technique. Findings Phase 1 results demonstrate that professional maturity, soft skills + problem solving, continuous learning and academic achievement secure a positive relationship with employer perceptions of graduate employability. Phase 2 results indicate that employers consider generic skills (time management, working in a team, attention to detail), general mental ability, subject-specific knowledge, willingness to work, attitudes and behaviors, and responsiveness to feedback when assessing employability of graduate students. Research limitations/implications Collectively, the results of phase 1 and 2 provide a comprehensive awareness of the factors that employers consider when assessing employability of graduate students. Researcher, educational institution, and employer implications are presented. Originality/value The authors provide a holistic and empirically grounded understanding of employer perceptions of graduate student employability through reviewing quantitative and qualitative indicators of employability from the employer perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".