Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-methods Q methodology study uncovers three distinct career support profiles in doctoral students, highlighting the need for tailored, identity-responsive career programming.
Background Career development needs among doctoral students in human resource development (HRD) may vary according to career aspirations, professional experiences, social identities, financial circumstances, and institutional contexts. Yet limited research has examined how HRD doctoral students subjectively prioritize different forms of career development support. Purpose This study explored HRD doctoral students’ subjective perspectives on their career development needs and the factors associated with variations in those needs. Research Design A mixed-methods design combining Q methodology with focus group interviews (FGIs) was employed to identify shared and contrasting perspectives on career development support. Study Sample Seventeen doctoral students from six U.S. HRD programs completed Q-sorts, and 13 participated in follow-up FGIs. Data Collection and/or Analysis Participants sorted 70 career development statements derived from the literature, pilot interviews, and researcher discussions. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify shared viewpoints. Factor arrays were interpreted using the crib-sheet method and supplemented with open-ended responses and FGI data. Results Three career development perspectives emerged: (1) support for academic appointments, (2) support for well-being, and (3) support for visibility and networking. Bipolar patterns further distinguished structural versus financial well-being needs and academic versus industry-oriented visibility and networking needs. Participants’ identities, positionalities, career aspirations, financial circumstances, and institutional and sociopolitical contexts shaped how they prioritized career development support. Conclusions HRD doctoral students do not experience career development needs uniformly. HRD programs should move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches by providing differentiated, identity-responsive, and career-path-specific support that addresses students’ academic preparation, well-being, and access to professional networks and visibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: