Obtaining Academic Employment Within the U.S. Context: The Experiences of Strugglers

Abstract

In the present study, we explored the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in navigating the U.S. academic job market. We used interpretative phenomenology and interview data from 15 Ph.D. graduates. These participants came from different racial/ethnic backgrounds and were either U.S. citizens or international candidates while pursuing their current academic positions. Our findings reveal that during their job search, the participants, especially racially minoritized individuals and immigrants, faced concerns about the best-fit qualities, negotiated their failures with a flexible mindset, and introspected to restore their academic identity. These findings suggest the internal struggles of academic job seekers and the complexities of validating doctoral employability in a highly competitive environment. Strong agency to overcome these challenges is essential to any successful academic job seekers. Given the findings, the study emphasizes the need to further research and enhance the employability of Ph.D. graduates in today’s academic landscape.

1. Introduction

The experiences of doctorate holders in obtaining academic employment provide invaluable insights for researchers, doctoral students and graduates, and Ph.D. training institutions. However, few studies have addressed this topic within the U.S. context [1]. This gap contributes to a lack of understanding doctoral students’ employability, the efficacy of doctoral training curricula in the United States, the perspectives of doctoral graduates on the U.S. academic job market, and their agency in navigating the U.S. academic job market. It also hinders discussion about doctoral students’ preparation and Ph.D. training practices at U.S. colleges and universities, which could explain doctoral graduates’ employment success. Exploring the academic job-searching experiences of doctorate holders is therefore essential within the U.S. context.

The success of securing academic positions is intricately linked to the interplay between market demand and supply [2,3]. Over the past decades, the ability of doctorate holders to achieve academic positions has declined [3]. According to the National Science Foundation [4], only 36% of U.S. doctorate holders secured non-postdoc academic positions in 2021, compared to 48% two decades earlier. Notably, a sizable proportion of doctorate holders who secured academic positions were in psychology (60%) or agricultural science and natural resources (50%), contrasting with other fields where rates of academic employment success ranged from 15–40%. To become faculty members, many doctorate holders, including over 40% of those at two-year colleges and universities, had to settle for part-time positions [5]. In the worst-case scenario, they are unemployed, which happened to approximately 72,000 doctorate holders in 2018 [1,6].

While challenges involved in securing academic jobs may be daunting [2], many doctorate holders are determined to pursue academic careers. These individuals are often motivated by a passion for teaching and research, positive research experiences, and family inspiration [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Their enthusiasm sometimes wanes when they encounter job unavailability, job insecurity, and academic career instability [13], among other hazards. Nevertheless, those with solid academic motivations work diligently to secure their desired academic positions. The experiences of these successful academic job seekers, who invest significant time and energy to improve their relative positions in the academic job market, are invaluable. Documenting these experiences is crucial to addressing the existing gaps and stimulating research interest in this critical aspect of higher education.

To that end, we conducted the present study, exploring the academic job-searching experiences of doctorate holders within the U.S. context. We focused the study on Ph.D. graduates who secured academic positions at colleges and universities nationwide. The study was guided by the following question:

What are the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in obtaining academic employment within the U.S. context?

The present study is a pioneering effort to examine the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in navigating the U.S. academic job market. The study enriches the existing literature and serves as a crucial resource for future research on the employability of Ph.D. graduates. It highlights areas where Ph.D. students and graduates should prepare and what stakeholders at Ph.D. training institutions, such as advisors and their departments and schools, can do to enhance their students’ employability. Through this study, we hope to catalyze momentum for researching doctoral employability while emphasizing the need to adequately prepare academics for this highly competitive academic job market.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Obtaining Academic Employment

Ph.D. graduates often pursue academic employment for a variety of reasons. At the core, many Ph.D. graduates possess a deep passion and personal research interest. The career as a professor aligns with their needs and ambitions and offers the autonomy and independence they desire [7,8,12]. In addition to personal passion, many Ph.D. graduates are inspired by their educators or have had limited opportunities to attend post-secondary institutions in the past [8,12]. Some choose academic careers because they wish to contribute significantly to their institutions [8]. The academic experiences of Ph.D. graduates during their doctoral programs also shape their interest in academia [9,10,11]. Furthermore, some Ph.D. graduates are inspired by their parents and aspire to become professors as role models for their community and the next generation [10]. For graduate students of color, the desire to become academics is powerful when they see a harmonious alignment between a research-intensive job and their cultural and social identity [10,11].

Obtaining academic employment involves finding a preference match between academic job seekers and employers, referred to as two-sided matching [14]. Candidates with teaching orientation are better matched with teaching-intensive institutions and vice versa [15]. To prove they are a match, applicants deal with numerous tasks during the application process [1,16]. They prepare abundant paperwork, show their past achievements, and reveal their potential to contribute to hiring institutions. Furthermore, candidates are expected to impress search committee members. They might informally contact the dean, chair, or hiring managers regarding the job, suggest setting up informal interviews during a conference, and enquire about positions available. If candidates are invited for campus visits, there are usually successive interviews over a prolonged period that underscores the thorough selection process. Candidates are expected to be prepared and demonstrate their matching qualities in these interviews.

Obtaining academic employment also involves translating Ph.D. (doctoral) employability into actual employment outcomes [1]. Doctoral employability refers to the likelihood that doctorate holders will get employed in academia [2]. However, less than 50% of doctorate holders in advanced countries achieve academic positions [17]. The academic employment rate among doctorate holders is even lower in English-speaking countries like Australia (25% [18]) and the United States (34%–36% [4,19]). Additionally, doctoral employability refers to a doctorate holder’s ability to secure full-time employment within a specific timeframe (e.g., 6, 12, or 24 months) after graduation [20]. Nevertheless, the literature on employability suggests that doctoral employability should be a lifelong developmental concept [21]. It encompasses not only doctoral graduates’ ability to secure meaningful employment but also the development of necessary attributes to maintain and find new employment throughout their careers.

Translating doctoral employability into employment outcomes is not always straightforward, as academic job seekers face relative positioning in the academic job market. When the supply of doctorates exceeds the demand, doctorate holders may face redundancy, lower wages, or unemployment [2]. The neoliberal supply-demand dynamic [22] suggests that in such situations, employers tend to increase the number of criteria in selecting candidates [23,24,25]. Graduates from prestigious departments and institutions with numerous publications, presentations, manuscripts under review, postdoctoral training, and extensive professional networks, among other qualities, are more likely to be selected [13,15,16,26,27,28]. Candidates lacking these qualities must strategically develop new ones to increase their chances of obtaining desired employment [1].

To translate their doctoral employability into employment outcomes, Ph.D. graduates often pursue boundaryless careers [13], but this does not always work due to different factors. These graduates tend to be open to moving to locations where job opportunities are available rather than restricting their focus to a specific area. However, not everyone has the flexibility to relocate or reconcile the tension between their career aspirations and practical constraints [13]. Even if they can relocate, Ph.D. graduates must balance their desired job requirements and social and cultural identity [7,10,29]. Securing jobs aligned with their social and cultural identity can be challenging for multiple candidates. Search committees, especially those at predominantly White institutions (PWIs, a term used to refer to U.S. higher education institutions having at least 50% of students as Whites), are not always racially or culturally diverse enough. This can result in biases that disadvantage candidates of color [30], married women with children [31], and candidates with different cultural backgrounds, limited English proficiency, or non-citizen status. Moreover, search committees are believed to select candidates based on preferences obscured through White norm-based policies, procedures, and practices [23,25,32]. A typical example is the implicit expectation of candidates to possess White “niceness” ([23], p. 1954). That means candidates nice in a non-White fashion can be categorized as the “other” ([33], p. 167) and rejected.

The interaction of supply and demand, combined with the preferences of hiring institutions, structurally influences Ph.D. graduates’ entry into the academic job market. However, the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in securing academic employment have not been extensively discussed [34]. Doctoral students often receive limited training in searching for academic jobs and have limited job-seeking experiences upon graduation [34], so they also need to learn from these experiences. Unfortunately, recent studies have primarily focused on whether doctorate holders were employed and on recruiters’ perspectives and experiences in recruitment (e.g., [23,25,28]) rather than on doctorate holders’ experiences in securing academic employment. Other studies have examined the experiences of doctorate holders in obtaining academic employment or the factors influencing their employment outcomes (e.g., [13,20,35]), but few have contextualized these experiences within the United States. As a result, the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in navigating this market remain underexplored.

2.2. Conceptual Framework

We grounded the present study in the concepts of the social field and habitus/agency [36,37]. To secure academic employment, Ph.D. graduates enter the academic job market or the social field [1]. According to Bourdieu [37], the social field is a social space made up of different forces. An example of these forces is higher education institutions that hire researchers and faculty. Through subjective and objective tools in their hiring process, hiring institutions determine the employment outcomes of candidates. As social agents, candidates react based on their consciousness and reflexiveness of their relative positions in the academic job market. This reaction is agency, the uttermost development of habitus [36,38]. In simple language, habitus refers to the “thinking and acting” of social agents ([39], p. 54) and reflects their personal history and circumstances. Habitus is both the outcome of the social field and a factor that structures the social field [37].

When Ph.D. graduates enter the social field, multiple requirements of attributes (i.e., forms of capital, as per Bourdieu’s language) conflict with their cultural identity and racial background, affecting their relative positions. In that conflict, Ph.D. graduates may be deemed as lacking the necessary attributes, and as the number of doctorates awarded annually increases [3,40], the perceived deficiency in necessary attributes compels Ph.D. graduates to “compensate for their differences” ([24], p. 11). We conceptualize these compensatory efforts as struggles [20], a structural consequence. To highlight this structural relationship, we lend weight to Ph.D. graduates’ attribute situation and agency to explore their struggles and how they overcome them. We postulate that Ph.D. graduates can exercise agency to handle their attribute situation and navigate the U.S. academic job market successfully.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Approach

We employed interpretative phenomenology to answer the research question, “What are the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in obtaining academic employment within the U.S. context?” Phenomenology is concerned with studying phenomena, encompassing ideas, concepts, objects, and more, in the form of directly lived experiences [41,42]. In the present study, the phenomenon directly experienced by the Ph.D. graduates was obtaining academic employment. While Edmund Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology emphasizes understanding the essence of phenomena without incorporating human judgment (a process known as “bracketing”), interpretative phenomenology underscores the sense-making of those who undergo the phenomenon [41,42,43]. According to Heidegger [44], experiences are context-related and pre-structured, reflecting the experiencers’ interpretation of the world they inhabit. Interpretative phenomenology addresses these experiences as a reflection and subjective interpretation of the experiencers’ lived world. This research approach was suitable for examining the U.S. academic job landscape through successful academic job seekers’ experiences.

3.2. Sampling

We employed four criteria to include Ph.D. graduates for the present study. First, the Ph.D. graduates underwent doctoral training at a U.S. higher education institution and were employed full-time in the United States at the time of recruitment. Second, these participants also applied for other academic positions as part of their efforts to secure their current academic positions. Therefore, experiences related to different academic positions were also included in the study. Third, we selected Ph.D. graduates who had been in their current positions for less than 10 years at the time of their recruitment (i.e., 2020) for the present study. This seniority criterion was considered appropriate for exploring their most recent experiences. Finally, following the categorization by Andalib et al. [45], academic employment encompassed tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenured positions (i.e., full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, lecturer, and postdoctoral fellow positions). This categorization was more inclusive than the traditional classification of professoriate positions, which typically included only assistant, associate, and full professors [12].

After establishing the sampling criteria, we implemented a purposeful sampling strategy to recruit participants [41]. At the time of recruitment, the participants held positions in seven states that fall into four regions—the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. We contacted these potential participants through conferences, such as AERA and ASHE, and our networks. A recruitment email was sent to 27 academics who met our inclusion criteria. Ultimately, 16 academics agreed to participate in the study and signed an informed consent form. While a phenomenological study sample can consist of as few as eight participants [41], we included 15 participants based on data saturation. The participants’ demographic information is provided in

Table 1. Participants’ Demographics.

Pseudonym	Race/Ethnicity	Sex	Age Range	Ph.D. Program/Major	Rank/Position
Sarah	Hispanic	Female	30–40	Philosophy	Assistant professor
Lisa	White	Female	40–50	Comparative education	Postdoctoral fellow
Darius	White	Male	40–50	Medical sciences	Assistant professor
Pieter	Asian	Male	40–50	Public policy	Associate professor
Yue	Asian	Female	40–50	Finance	Associate professor
Thant	Asian	Male	40–50	Instructional technology	Associate professor
Albert	African	Male	40–50	Mathematics	Assistant professor
Maria	Hispanic	Female	30–40	Higher education	Lecturer
Rin	Asian	Male	40–50	American studies	Assistant professor
Stephanie	Multiracial	Female	30–40	Higher education	Postdoctoral fellow
Nancy	White	Female	30-40	Creative writing	Assistant professor
Lucy	African	Female	40–50	History	Associate professor
Marco	White	Male	40–50	Higher education	Assistant professor
Sandra	African	Female	40–50	Biology	Postdoctoral fellow
Mark	Asian	Male	30–40	Mathematics	Postdoctoral fellow

, where we used pseudonyms for anonymity and confidentiality.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted one-on-one interviews to collect data, following the recommendations of Tomaszewski et al. [46] for phenomenological studies. The interviews were carried out in a semi-structured format, as suggested by Qu and Dumay [47]. The semi-structured format allowed us to adapt our data collection style, the pace of data collection, and the order of questions asked. In each interview, we posed six structured questions to each participant. These questions covered the following aspects: (1) participants’ descriptions of their current positions; (2) how they became aware of these positions before applying; (3) their activities during the application process; (4) the factors contributing to their success in securing the job; (5) other essential factors in applying for academic positions; (6) any advice the participants wished to offer future Ph.D. graduates. We focused primarily on questions 2–5, which were most closely related to the participants’ experiences. Depending on the participants’ responses, we asked follow-up questions to delve deeper into the experiences they considered significant. Since the data were collected remotely, and interviews occurred during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted on Zoom. Each interview was transcribed verbatim using Express Scribe (version 10.08) and then exported to Dedoose (version 8.3.47) for analysis. After the interviews, we sent each participant a $10 gift card as a token of gratitude for their participation.

To ensure the adequacy of the selected sample, we analyzed the collected data after each interview until reaching data saturation. We adopted the thematic analysis method for phenomenological research, consisting of three phases [43]. In the first phase, we carefully reviewed each transcript twice, initially immersing ourselves in the experiences described by the participants and paying close attention to unique and novel experiential insights. During the second phase, we sought to extract the meanings inherent in these experiences and, when necessary, documented our observations in a reflective journal. As depicted in

Table 2. Data Analysis Summary.

	Number	Example
Excerpts	140	I remembered to always emphasize publications in well-regarded journals. It is unfortunate to say this, but … jobs have been scarce. I was ready to compete with graduates from world-class institutions. They had fancy degrees that I didn’t have. The only way to compete in their own games was to publish in top journals. Like so, I might compete … and then, you know, I might say, “Look! They graduate from a famous university, but they don’t have a strong publication”. But I was careful in demonstrating my abilities. Otherwise, they would consider me stuck-up [laughing]. (Rin)
Codes	81 *	Research competence
Categories	15	Knowing that research quality is important, but …
Themes	3	Facing concerns about the best-fit qualities

* There are fewer codes than excerpts since one code might be applied to two or more excerpts.

, we labeled excerpts that encapsulated the participants’ experiences. We compared these excerpts to identify both similarities and differences in their meanings. Subsequently, we categorized the codes into subthemes (or categories) and organized them into main themes. We identified three overarching themes from the initial 15 categories that illuminated the phenomenon of interest [48]. In the final phase, we integrated the themes into a coherent whole by comparing and discussing the meanings of the themes in a written format. It is important to note that no new data were collected after we interviewed the 15th participant. Consequently, we determined that data saturation had been reached, and the 15 interviewed participants constituted a sufficient sample.

3.4. Positionality and Trustworthiness

We acknowledge that we belong to racially minoritized groups and also have experiences in searching for academic jobs. To avoid the conflation of our experiences with the participants’ experiences, we employed strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of our research [49]. For dependability, we had an expert in the field of education review and validated the research process and findings. For credibility, the first author engaged in peer debriefing with the second author during the analysis phase, employed triangulation (i.e., examining the participants’ biographies, personal websites, and Google Citations to cross-reference the findings), and checked the findings with the participants after the data had been analyzed. For transferability, we provided a comprehensive and detailed description of the academic job-searching phenomenon. For confirmability, we maintained an audit trail to document the methodology and step-by-step specifications and a reflective journal (memoing) to record our actions and reflections throughout the research process.

4. Findings

We found that throughout the academic job-searching process, Ph.D. graduates faced concerns about the best-fit qualities, negotiated their failures with a flexible mindset, and introspected to restore their academic identity. These experiences were internal struggles. If the internal struggles had persisted for too long, some Ph.D. graduates might have considered discontinuing academic employment pursuits.

4.1. Facing Concerns about the Best Fit Qualities

Participants reported being concerned about becoming the best fit while securing academic employment. According to several participants, being the best fit was perceived as the primary and decisive factor in obtaining an academic position. We inquired about the concept of the best fit among the participants. Sarah (applying for the current position as a U.S. citizen), an assistant professor in philosophy, explained it as being “on top of the game” in the eyes of search committees. Most agreed with Sarah’s definition and emphasized that to achieve the best-fit status, they invested time in interpreting the criteria of hiring institutions and convincingly demonstrating how they met those criteria. Lisa (applying for the current position as an international candidate), a postdoctoral researcher in comparative education, described her experiences as follows:

I made use of everything at every step during the application process to show that I was an excellent fit! … they looked for a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I had to interpret what was a fit and showed them that I was the piece they were looking for—the best fit. For example, they prioritized candidates graduating from comparative education programs. Also, they both required us to be able to do qualitative and quantitative data. I think I have mastered it, so … I think showing them that I was really determined and invested in the job.

Hiring institutions sought Ph.D. graduates with various attributes aligned with their specific needs. Through Lisa’s interpretation, these were the knowledge of comparative education and the skills of both qualitative and quantitative research. Hiring institutions were also keen on observing candidates’ other attributes, such as “determination” and “interest,” match the job. Lisa noted that while having sufficient attributes was an obvious requirement, displaying a strong interest in the job was another requirement, which was critical but never clearly stated. In resonation, other participants believed that showcasing their attributes and a genuine interest in the job made them the best fit. However, the participants had concerns about demonstrating these best-fit qualities, particularly during social interactions like meals. Pieter (applying for the current position as an international candidate), an associate professor in public policy, highlighted this concern by saying, “Meals... They may ask, you know, very casual questions, but don’t be fooled. They are evaluating you.” Hiring institutions used these meals as opportunities to evaluate further candidates’ professionalism, behavior, and level of interest. Consequently, one concern of the participants was that they might not remain consistent in what they said and how they behaved.

Participants expressed their concerns that their racially minoritized, non-American, or foreign identities might have made them less preferred. They attributed this struggle to identity preferences [25], a topic they had encountered during their doctoral coursework. A notable example of identity preference pertained to candidates’ names. Yue (applying for the current position as an international candidate), an associate professor in finance, shared her experience as follows:

The name is important. My name is a non-Western name, which certainly sounds foreign. And that’s the thing, although my application, in my opinion, was strong. Therefore, if this was true, it would be funny. So, a small detail, and I don’t think this is advice for foreign candidates to change names … because that’s an identity…. I know, and we know that’s a factor!

Candidates’ racial and cultural backgrounds, as well as whether they had non-Western names, were cited as examples of “different levels of bias” (Sarah). All the racially minoritized participants were concerned about racial bias [30]. The participants understood racial bias as the perception held by some in the predominantly White culture that racially minoritized individuals have inferior qualities. They recognized that preferences and racial bias were intertwined in shaping the selection of candidates, but pinpointing exactly when this intertwining occurred was challenging. Thant (applying for the current position as a U.S. citizen), an associate professor in instructional technology, shared this sentiment. Thant and the other racially minoritized and immigrant participants had a concern that as the number of doctorate holders increased across the country, hiring institutions would increasingly exercise preferences and racial bias in their hiring decisions, resulting in repeated rejections for many of them.

4.2. Negotiating Failures with a Flexible Mindset

Participants negotiated failures since failures created a contradiction between reality and academic dreams. They acknowledged that an extended period outside academia after graduation would be detrimental to an academic career. In response, many participants chose to interpret their failures positively. This involved making extra efforts to consider the subjective factors that might have negatively affected their employability. Among the factors reported were search committees prioritizing certain racial backgrounds to enhance faculty diversity, the challenge of effectively demonstrating the best-fit qualities, how hiring institutions could discern the quality signals conveyed through demonstrations and the preferences of hiring institutions. About one of these factors, namely, the faculty diversity agenda of search committees, Thant had the following thoughts:

So, as I said, when I was in the market … and if I was rejected, it didn’t reflect who I was. In addition, this process was stressful … Because at the end of the day, I might have thought: “I’m excellent. Why did they not choose me?” Blah blah blah. For example, when I applied, and that department already had one Asian faculty member. I am Southeast Asian, but Asian candidates in general are not the focus of the affirmative action policy. So, they didn’t want another Asian faculty member. Right? So, no matter how good I was, I might be disadvantaged right from the get-go.

Participants attributed their failures to the racial prioritization of hiring institutions. This negotiation led them to believe that they might be a fit for academic positions but not necessarily the best fit. In other words, the participants still perceived themselves as having the necessary qualities to be employed and continued to apply for positions. Many adjusted the way they demonstrated their qualities and prepared for interviews to become the best fit. However, since being ready to relocate was important in pursuing boundaryless careers [13], the decision to apply for academic positions and move proved challenging. Some participants were married, and their spouses were unable to relocate. For single participants, staying close to their families was a consideration. Under these constraints, some participants opted not to accept positions in remote areas, even when these positions were available and salaries were high. Instead, they exerted extra efforts to secure positions near their families in urban areas, where jobs were scarce and salaries were low. Sometimes, they also accepted temporary positions:

I couldn’t move a lot because of family reasons. So, I became a visiting assistant professor at this university from 2009 to 2012. In 2012, there was a lecturer position, so I applied for it, and I became a lecturer here from 2012 to 2015. In 2015, there was a tenured-track opening, so I also applied for it, and I became an assistant professor in 2015. So, there were options to take along the way. But they were just temporary so that I would take the permanent job [assistant professor]. (Albert, an assistant professor in mathematics, who applied for the current position as an international candidate)

In temporary positions, participants waited for the right time to apply and secure their target job. For example, if they did not secure an assistant professor position, applying for an adjunct position or a one-year lecturer position was a strategic choice. Lisa considered this strategy as “a placeholder of sorts,” which allowed the participants to gain teaching experiences and gave them the time to do research. Negotiating failures, according to the participants, involved assessing employability and taking temporary positions to continue progressing. However, many participants were not always certain if they would persist in pursuing their dream jobs. Consequently, they questioned their academic identity multiple times, losing and restoring it.

4.3. Introspecting to Restore Academic Identity

Academic identity, or the academic self [50], is shaped by academic values that reflect academics’ subjective interpretation of their discipline when they are still doctoral students [51]. Participants revealed that their academic values were research rigor and publishing research in prestigious journals. These values are closely related because esteemed journals maintain high academic standards, and publications in such journals establish scholars whom higher education institutions seek. Although they tried to uphold these values until securing their current academic positions, the participants admitted that maintaining these values was difficulty. The participants shared that they “didn’t graduate from a top university” (Albert), and some were international students during the job-searching process. Due to their perceived shortcomings and experiences of failures, many questioned whether they should stop pursuing their dream job and consider alternative career paths that may not align with their training. Maria (applying for the current position as a U.S. citizen), a lecturer in higher education, expressed this dilemma:

There is not an abundance of tenure-track jobs. So, institutions continue to rely more on adjunct and clinical faculty. … The market has become more competitive. So, I thought I should take something else … and then continue applying for something else … the administrative position that does not have contracts and stay in the position for an indefinite amount of time.

Contemplating a career outside their field of training did not resemble negotiating with a flexible mindset. Participants explained that, after experiencing numerous failures, they began to consider leaving academia forever rather than opting for temporary positions and awaiting the right time to secure academic jobs. Many engaged in extensive contemplation about the U.S. academic job market, their relative positions in it, and various non-academic careers they might pursue. However, academic values were an integral part of their academic identity [51], closely tied to tier-one institutions. Becoming full-time academics at such institutions was their dream, so the participants adopted a “hard-headed” approach (Yue): they continued to submit more applications. Speaking about academic identity, Rin (applying for the current position as an international candidate), an associate professor in American studies, had a definite perspective:

I didn’t let anyone define me. Some people say, you know, “Go publish a book chapter”. Some say “Go publish there” [in a bad journal]. I didn’t listen to them. Top or nothing! I was a Ph.D. from a not-so-famous university. I didn’t touch Harvard. I wouldn’t even have a full professorship at such an amazing university. I was a minority person and an immigrant. But I didn’t let them define me.

Participants found it challenging to maintain their academic values. Some considered lowering their standards, including publishing research in any journal available to expand their curriculum vitae (CV) and accepting a less ideal job. The need for employment and financial stability sometimes led the participants to compromise their values. As one participant noted, “I was not young then” (Marco, an assistant professor in higher education, who applied for the current position as a U.S. citizen). However, the dedication to research rigor and publishing research in prestigious journals aligned with the expectations of the institutions where the participants aspired to work. When facing the “publish or perish” pressure, several participants stood firm in defense of their values. They emphasized research rigor and the “Top or nothing” approach, meaning that they would only publish research in prestigious journals. They pursued positions at tier-one institutions, reflecting their determination to uphold their academic values. In their academic employment pursuits, the participants frequently questioned the price of adhering to these academic values, but they determined to continue. Their relentless determination led them to success.

5. Discussion

The present study yielded significant insights into the experiences of academic job candidates. The study indicated that concerns permeated participants’ minds regarding failures, and the participants had to navigate failures with flexibility. However, experiencing failures forced them to question their academic identity while also fighting the idea of quitting academia. The participants faced internal struggles; their journey into academia was anything but straightforward. Given these experiences, the study has extended the existing body of research on the phenomenon of navigating the academic job market [52].

Participants understood the interaction between demand and supply [2,3] in combination with preferences and racial bias in the U.S. academic job market [23,25,30,32]. Hiring institutions in the United States are believed to use the fit discourse to obscure their preferences for White characteristics [25]. These institutions are also thought to employ biased practices against racially minoritized candidates, such as scrutinizing racially minoritized candidates’ qualifications excessively, assessing their “niceness” based on White norms, and considering whether racially minoritized candidates have ever participated in strikes [23,30]. Our analysis revealed that the participants knew these preferences and biases and employed such knowledge to interpret their experiences.

Participants contemplated giving up on their academic dreams or seeking positions with more relaxing requirements, disrupting their academic identity [50]. Such identity disruptions are common among individuals who are unable to secure their desired employment [13]. Nevertheless, since the participants had strong motivations for entering academia [7,8,9,12], they challenged the idea of quitting academia or publishing research in mediocre journals. Such a restoration of academic identity introduces a critical component to their experiences. By defining themselves with these academic values, they did not accept the compensatory efforts [24] associated with their relative positions in the academic job market. These Ph.D. graduates exercised their agency, sent signals to hiring institutions that their academic identity would fit with the expectations of tier-one higher education institutions, and ultimately secured their target jobs. This shows that thanks to their agency, academic identity can become a critical attribute. Academic identity through the experiences of Ph.D. graduates resembles career identity [53], a crucial dimension of employability [21,54].

Participants ultimately secured academic positions, but their doctoral employability would have been validated more efficiently if they had possessed sufficient attributes. They fought until the last minute, dealing with concerns about the best-fit qualities, negotiating failures with a flexible mindset, and introspecting to restore their academic identity along the way. Given their backgrounds and lack of attributes (e.g., not graduating from prestigious colleges or universities), these struggles depicted the participants as “underdogs” (Sandra, a postdoctoral fellow in biology, who applied for the current position as an international candidate). They could not overcome these struggles sooner, and their lingering in these struggles suggests that the U.S. academic job market is a field of struggles [1,39]. Too many struggles in this field could reinforce their propensity to exit academia for good.

5.1. Recommendations for Further Research

Multiple internal struggles may slow down the process of validating doctoral employability. To build a theoretical foundation for doctoral employability research, future studies could examine Ph.D. graduates’ understanding of the following latent concepts: “fit,” “academic values,” “academic identity,” and more. Quantitative findings about these concepts would help move the understanding of doctoral employability to a more generalizable phase. Future studies could also examine how Ph.D. graduates signal their attributes to search committees. Pham and Soltani [55] suggested that to make oneself employable, attention should be paid to one’s ability to manage attributes. We believe that exercising agency to enhance the quality of attribute signals is that kind of ability. Since the academic job-searching process within the U.S. context is multi-step, exploring how Ph.D. graduates manage their attributes effectively at each step would induce nuanced insights for academic job-seeking, and Ph.D. training institutions to advance their employability agenda. Also, there has been increasing discussion about academic alternative jobs. Future studies could investigate how Ph.D. graduates navigate the academic alternative job market. A comparison of the experiences in navigating the academic job market and the experiences in navigating the academic alternative job market would elucidate how distinct the academic job market is within the U.S. context. This would enrich the body of knowledge that serves the purposes of research, training, and academic job-seeking.

5.2. Recommendations for Practice

Obtaining academic employment involves internal struggles, but doctoral students can enhance employability by taking proactive steps. According to Ellenbecker et al. [27], dedicating ample time to improving research competencies enhances doctoral employability. To this end, doctoral students should capitalize on research opportunities while in their Ph.D. programs. Doctoral students should also seek teaching opportunities to prepare for teaching positions in case they cannot secure future research-intensive positions. Through these opportunities, doctoral students, especially those not graduating from prestigious colleges or universities, could establish academic relationships with their advisors, professors, colleagues, etc. Developing connections is “a whole process of work” ([37], p. 229), but it is well worth the efforts of doctoral students for future research and professional collaborations. If strong enough, these connections can also lead to invaluable letters of recommendation, sending strong attribute signals to search committees to improve their relative positions.

In relation to attributes, it is important to develop a strong academic identity for doctoral students. Central to this developmental process is the academic agenda between advisors and doctoral students. Advisors and doctoral students should work out an informal yet important curriculum early in the Ph.D. program [56]. Advisors should emphasize the necessity of doing and publishing rigorous research to their doctoral students. They should also create opportunities for doctoral students to participate in research, peer-reviewed conferences, and other bootcamp activities so that doctoral students appreciate high-quality research. For students from racially minoritized and immigrant backgrounds, cultivating these values becomes particularly crucial, given the potential impact of bias and subjective criteria on their employment prospects [25,30,57].

Since doctoral students often lack experience in navigating the academic job market [34], Ph.D. programs should offer targeted training to address this gap. Departments and schools can use their own faculty and researcher selection processes as a model for this training, helping students understand how search committees evaluate candidates. It is also crucial for departments and schools to inform doctoral students about the diversity and training of these committees [23, 30] and the criteria they use to assess candidates as a “fit” or “the best fit.” Additionally, if there is a risk that the selection process might be influenced by biases or preferences rather than objective or racially and culturally sensitive measures [25], departments and schools should also guide doctoral students in handling such situations.

When doctoral students graduate and enter the academic job market, appropriately communicating their attribute signals to search committees is crucial. This task may be challenging for racially minoritized and immigrant graduates, especially Asians, who face the stereotype of being aggressive in their pursuit of success [58]. If they are not experienced in sending expertise signals, they risk reinforcing this stereotype and being perceived negatively. These Ph.D. graduates should, therefore, pay attention to acting humbly to be liked on the one hand and showing that they are the best fit on the other hand. This represents their ability to manage attributes [55]. The experiences explored in the present study indicate that the ability to manage attributes helps Ph.D. graduates achieve employment success.

6. Limitations

While the present study significantly contributes to existing scholarship, it is essential to acknowledge four limitations. First, the study did not encompass Ph.D. graduates who had previously searched for academic jobs without success and subsequently transitioned out of academia [1]. This group may have faced additional challenges, and their experiences in securing academic employment would have enriched the direct experiential knowledge base. Second, Ph.D. graduates’ interpretations of experiences were filtered through their lenses and perceptions [44]. Due to this, their interpretations were reflections rather than an exact representation of the U.S. academic job market. Third, the study relied on the assumption that Ph.D. programs primarily serve individuals intending to pursue academia and apply for academic positions, as highlighted by Brennan and Magness [2]. Therefore, the findings may only make sense to doctorate holders interested in becoming faculty members or researchers. Finally, the study included participants who had received their doctorates in the United States and were working at U.S. research institutions. Given this inclusion criteria, the experiences of Ph.D. graduates may not introduce robust insights for those navigating non-U.S. academic job markets.

7. Conclusions

Few studies have examined the direct experiences of doctorate holders in securing academic employment within the U.S. This gap may hinder doctoral students and researchers from accessing relevant theories on academic job seekers’ experiences and their doctoral employability, limiting opportunities to assess doctoral students’ preparation and training at U.S. colleges and universities. In response, we conducted the present study to explore how Ph.D. graduates navigate the U.S. academic job market with the question, “What are the experiences of Ph.D. graduates in obtaining academic employment within the U.S. context?” Our findings indicated the internal struggles faced by Ph.D. graduates in securing academic positions, portraying the academic job market as directly experienced by these graduates. They underscored the significant time and effort invested in securing positions and highlighted the additional challenges faced by racially minoritized individuals and immigrants. More research on related concepts and doctoral employability should be done, and different proactive actions should be taken to enhance the employability of Ph.D. graduates for this highly competitive academic job market.